The Labour Court this week refused to handle a case of unfair dismissal arguing the manner in which the complainant filed her case was outside the court’s jurisdiction. The Directorate of Dispute Prevention and Resolution (DDPR) had referred the case of unfair dismissal lodged by ’Mathuso Kao-Liphoto claiming payment after Sechaba Consultants dismissed her from work to the labour court.
business
May 26, 2019
SECHABA MATATIELE
3 min read
Labour court disowns unfair dismissal case
court
But labour court President Motlatsi Monoko, having considered the submission of legal representatives of both parties, said he and his assessors found it appropriate to decline jurisdiction over the claim of unfair dismissal. He said there was no claim of unfair dismissal in the referral form when the case was presented before DDPR so he advised the applicant to go back and lodge a fresh application with a claim of unfair dismissal and be conciliated properly at DDPR.
According to Monoko, it was wrong for applicant to bring this case to labour court with no claim of unfair dismissal in the referral form. He said they were not dismissing the case but were declining jurisdiction. The applicant Kao-Liphoto entered into an agreement to work for Sechaba Consultants as an accountant from 2007 to 2015, although her employment ended in 2014, on a monthly salary of M15 100
until December 2014.
Enjoy our daily newsletter from today
Access exclusive newsletters, along with previews of new media releases.
Around February 2015, the employer started treating Kao-Liphoto differently which led to animosity as some of the perks which were provided for were taken away without any explanation. Also there was an attempt to dismiss the applicant following what was termed as an investigative report, the contents which could not be disclosed to her. The court papers further revealed that the applicant while under the employment of the respondent was given another separate and independent fixed contract for consultancy services to assist the
Examination Council of Lesotho (ECOL) in the early assessment of early grades numeracy and reading. She was to render her services for 19 days for M2 000 a day rate. She was never paid for this although the project manager for the same contract was paid.
The unpaid wages for the consultant service to assist ECOL and the issue of severance payment together with unpaid leave days were brought to the attention of the company in vain as she was never paid. Therefore, the applicant filed papers in the DDPR claiming severance pay to the tune of M35 131, payment of 31.5 leave days to the tune of M19 533, two-year salary as compensation for unfair dismissal, unpaid wages for contract between her and employer for consultancy service for ECOL to the tune of M38 000 and interest at the rate of 18 percent per annum, as well as costs of the lawsuit.
Advocate Bokang Pita for the applicant, addressing the labour court, said the matter was referred to DDPR before it came to labour court. He said it was in arbitration that the issue of unfair dismissal arose as it was shown by applicant that she was dismissed hence she was not paid. He said during conciliation it was agreed between parties that the matter be referred to the labour court. Advocate Tlhalefo Ntaote for the respondent was quick to say they never agreed and he never represented respondent in the DDPR. He said this matter was wrongfully brought to the labour court through the backdoor under the guise of unfair dismissal which was not brought to DDPR. “There was no claim of unfair dismissal and this court should decline jurisdiction to entertain such matters,” Ntaote said.
President Monoko said what appeared to them was that there was no claim of unfair dismissal in the referral form, so the court has no jurisdiction.
Tailored for you
