TRUST ME SECURITY v EMMANUEL CHINGARANDE & OTHERS

Key Issues

• {"issue_text":"Whether the arbitrator erred in placing the onus of proof on the appellant","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Claimants produced bank statements; appellant custodian of employment records"}
• {"issue_text":"Whether the claims had prescribed in terms of section 94 of the Labour Act","issue_type":"law","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Matter referred to NEC on 14 April 2014; arbitrator stated part of dispute falls outside prescription period"}
• {"issue_text":"Whether the arbitrator erred in awarding overtime without sufficient evidence","issue_type":"mixed","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Claimants claimed hours worked in excess of normal hours and public holidays; appellant did not produce occurrence book or time book"}
• {"issue_text":"Whether the arbitrator erred in awarding shoe polish and laundry soap benefits","issue_type":"law","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Award justified by Statutory Instrument 76 of 2012; appellant did not dispute applicability"}
• {"issue_text":"Whether the arbitrator misinterpreted section 7 (2) (b) of Statutory Instrument 76 of 2012","issue_type":"law","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Appellant claimed misinterpretation but did not point out specific error"}

Background