{"issue_text":"Whether the matter had prescribed in terms of section 94 of the Labour Act when referred to the Designated Agent in 2012","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Contracts terminated 2007; referral in 2012; more than 2 years elapsed"}
{"issue_text":"Whether the unfair labour practice was continuing at time of referral","issue_type":"mixed","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Overtime claims submitted up to termination; arbitrator found practice continuing"}
{"issue_text":"Whether respondents were entitled to overtime payments","issue_type":"substantive","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Claimed 252 vs 208 hours monthly; Collective Bargaining Agreement provisions"}
This summary was generated by AI. Use Zalari to read the full judgment.
background
Facts of the Case
Background
The respondents, former security guards employed by the appellant, claimed unpaid overtime totaling $80,661.90. After conciliation failed, the matter proceeded to arbitration where the arbitrator found in favour of the respondents. The appellant appealed on grounds of prescription and disputed entitlement to overtime payments.
Read the full judgment, get AI analysis, and find related cases