{"issue_text":"Whether the arbitrator erred in law by substituting the employer's discretion to impose a dismissal penalty","issue_type":"law","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Arbitrator ordered reinstatement despite employer imposing dismissal"}
{"issue_text":"Whether the arbitrator erred in law by not realising that respondents' misconduct went to the root of their employment contracts","issue_type":"law","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Refusal to return vehicles and sign secrecy declaration"}
{"issue_text":"Whether the arbitrator had jurisdiction to determine the second count regarding the motor vehicles","issue_type":"law","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Respondents' refusal to return vehicles and claim of right"}
{"issue_text":"Whether the appeal to the internal appeals officer was filed out of time","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Procedural requirement for internal appeal"}
{"issue_text":"Whether the instruction to sign the secrecy declaration was lawful","issue_type":"law","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Employer requiring employees to sign new document"}
This summary was generated by AI. Use Zalari to read the full judgment.
background
Facts of the Case
Background
The appellant employer dismissed three employees for refusing to sign a secrecy declaration and for refusing to return company motor vehicles after suspension. The arbitrator found all respondents guilty but ordered reinstatement. The employer appealed, arguing the arbitrator erred in law.
Read the full judgment, get AI analysis, and find related cases