{"issue_text":"Whether the arbitrator lacked jurisdiction to deal with the matter","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Arbitrator presided over initial award and quantification proceedings"}
{"issue_text":"Whether the arbitrator erred by giving an award in excess of what respondents claimed","issue_type":"law","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Respondents claimed notice pay, outstanding wages, gratuity, service pay, severance and relocation"}
{"issue_text":"Whether the arbitrator's award was grossly unreasonable","issue_type":"fact","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Arbitrator used Collective Bargaining Agreement salary scale as yardstick"}
This summary was generated by AI. Use Zalari to read the full judgment.
background
Facts of the Case
Background
The appellant school appealed against an arbitral award that ordered it to pay terminal benefits to three former employees. The arbitrator had ruled the school should pay US$10,868-00 to each respondent as terminal benefits including notice pay, outstanding wages, service pay and severance.
Read the full judgment, get AI analysis, and find related cases