The
appellant appealed to the Labour Court against the decision of the
respondent's Appeals Committee, alleging procedural irregularities
and impugning the Committee's decision on the merits of his
dismissal from employment with the respondent.
The
pertinent background to the matter is that the appellant, who was
employed by the respondent, was given a supervisory role over two
casual employees. He sent the two to the premises of National Foods
Limited to pack and stack used bags in packs of 100 bags each, as
directed by National Foods. The bags had been paid for and were to be
transported to the respondent's premises by the appellant. It was
later discovered, just before the bags were to be removed, that the
two employees had packed 110 instead of 100 bags per pack, suggesting
an intention to steal the extra 10 bags per pack. The appellant was
charged with theft and appeared before the disciplinary committee,
and, later, the Appeals Committee.
During
the disciplinary hearings the two casual employees testified that
they had acted under the instructions of the appellant in packing
more bags than had been instructed by National Foods. The appellant,
when he was given the opportunity to do so, declined to cross examine
the two witnesses.
The
Labour Court found that the procedural irregularities raised by the
appellant did not vitiate the proceedings of the Appeals Committee
because:
(a)
He had received a fair hearing before the disciplinary committee and
the Appeals Committee, which relied on the evidence presented to the
disciplinary committee; and
(b)
No prejudice was shown to have been suffered by him as a result of
the alleged irregularities.
The
issue before us, therefore, is whether the court a
quo
erred in finding that the irregularities alleged were not so fatal as
to vitiate the disciplinary proceedings; that the appellant was
afforded a fair hearing and that he was properly found guilty of
theft.
It
is our unanimous view that the court a
quo
correctly found that the procedural irregularities alleged by the
appellant did not vitiate the disciplinary proceedings conducted by
the respondent. Furthermore, we are satisfied that the Labour Court
correctly found that no prejudice was occasioned to the appellant,
as, in the circumstances of the case, he had received a fair hearing
before the disciplinary committee, and, subsequently, the Appeals
Committee.
The
court, in our view, properly relied on the case of Watyoka
v Zupco
SC87-05, where this court stated as follows:
“The
appellant also raised a complaint about the composition of the
disciplinary committee but it was not shown that there was any bias
or prejudice at all. The composition of the committee is a
technicality that cannot be allowed to nullify the proceedings,
which, according to the record, reflect that he had a fair hearing.”
That
being the case, we find that the court a
quo
correctly proceeded to determine the matter on the merits.
Turning
to the merits of the matter, we are satisfied that the Labour Court
properly analysed the evidence before it. We note, in particular,
that the appellant declined to cross-examine the witnesses who gave
evidence against him, which linked him to the alleged theft. In our
view, the evidence of the witnesses in question remained
uncontroverted. On this basis, we are unable to find that the court a
quo
misdirected itself in any way in upholding the appellant's
conviction and subsequent dismissal.
In
the result, we are of the unanimous view that this appeal lacks merit
and ought to be dismissed.
As
regards costs, we are satisfied that in the particular circumstances
of this case it would be inappropriate to penalize
the appellant with an order for costs.
It
is accordingly ordered as follows:
The
appeal be and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.
