(1) INTRODUCTION On the 9th of May 2018, the plaintiff issued a writ and statement of claim against the defendant for the following reliefs: (a) A declaration that the termination was wrongful(b) An order for the payment of all entitlements due plaintiff before and or as at the date of termination(c) Damages(d) An order for re-instatement of plaintiff forthwith and without loss in ranking, status and or entitlements he would otherwise have earned but for the wrongful termination.
e) Interest on entitlement from 1st of June 2016 to date of final payment.
The defendant denied liability for the claims of the plaintiff and stated that the plaintiff was not entitled to any of the reliefs endorsed on the writ of summons and statement of claim.
-
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION At the close of pleadings the following issues were set down for determination by the court: (1) Whether or not plaintiff was involved in ticket malpractice? (2) Whether or not plaintiff was employed as a driver or a conductor? (3) Whether or not plaintiff was caught on video drinking alcoholic drink? (4) Whether or not plaintiff was given a copy of the disciplinary committee report that examined him? (5) Whether or not the defendant is in breach of the collective bargaining agreement (CBA)between the parties? (6) Whether or not the termination of plaintiff’s employment was wrongful, unlawful and therefore void? (7) Any other issues arising out of the pleadings.
-
BRIEF FACTS The plaintiff was an employee of the defendant a limited liability company that is engaged in the transport business all over the country.
The plaintiff was a driver in charge of one of the defendant’s buses.
Sometime in the year 2016 the defendant queried the plaintiff for drinking alcohol while on duty.
The plaintiff was later put before a disciplinary committee set up by the defendant after which his appointment was terminated.
The first termination letter that was served on the plaintiff gave his designation as a conductor and upon the complaint of the plaintiff, the letter was withdrawn and another letter bearing the same date was issued to the plaintiff, this time stating his designation as a driver.
The content of the termination letter was to the effect that the plaintiff’s employment was being severed because the plaintiff had been found guilty of the charge of ticket malpractice.
The plaintiff felt aggrieved by the defendant’s action and he was also of the view that his termination was wrongful because
