airport but officials at the airport were refusing to give him the parcels because of some discrepancies in the paperwork. He proceeded to testify that whilst he was at the airport he contacted his supervisor Mr Brussels who refused to assist him and instead threatened to assault him if he arrived at the warehouse (appellant’s business place) without the parcels. [17] The respondent further testified that he managed to get some of the parcels from the airport and drove back to the workplace where he met his supervisor who confronted him and later physically assaulted him. He reported the matter to the manager, a certain Mr De Jager who promised to talk to Mr Brussels. The two were separated by the security officials on duty, whereafter each went to do his work. He testified that Brussels went into the warehouse and he went in the Kombi to continue with his work. He continued and testified that a few minutes later, his supervisor came out of the warehouse, pushed him and was trying to remove something from his pocket, he did not know what it was. He then hit his supervisor‘s hand and the object fell from the supervisor’s hand, the security guard then came and separated them gain. [18] He continued and testified that on the 03rd day of May 2011 he was suspended from work and informed to appear at a disciplinary hearing on 10 May 2011, he further testified that when he was handed the suspension letter he was informed that the company does not allow external representation that is why he came without any representative to the disciplinary hearing. He appeared at the disciplinary hearing as instructed and when asked how he pleads to the charge against him he said he pleaded not guilty, after pleading not guilty he was never given opportunity to state his case. [19] the evidence was led and the representatives of the parties submitted arguments, the arbitrator found that the disciplinary hearing was procedurally flawed and therefore procedurally unfair. He justified his conclusions as follows (I will in detail quote his reasoning):
airport but officials at the airport were refusing to give him the parcels because of some discrepancies in the paperwork. He proceeded to testify that whilst he was at the airport he contacted his supervisor Mr Brussels who refused to assist him and instead threatened to assault him if he arrived at the warehouse (appellant’s business place) without the parcels. [17] The respondent further testified that he managed to get some of the parcels from the airport and drove back to the workplace where he met his supervisor who confronted him and later physically assaulted him. He reported the matter to the manager, a certain Mr De Jager who promised to talk to Mr Brussels. The two were separated by the security officials on duty, whereafter each went to do his work. He testified that Brussels went into the warehouse and he went in the Kombi to continue with his work. He continued and testified that a few minutes later, his supervisor came out of the warehouse, pushed him and was trying to remove something from his pocket, he did not know what it was. He then hit his supervisor‘s hand and the object fell from the supervisor’s hand, the security guard then came and separated them gain. [18] He continued and testified that on the 03rd day of May 2011 he was suspended from work and informed to appear at a disciplinary hearing on 10 May 2011, he further testified that when he was handed the suspension letter he was informed that the company does not allow external representation that is why he came without any representative to the disciplinary hearing. He appeared at the disciplinary hearing as instructed and when asked how he pleads to the charge against him he said he pleaded not guilty, after pleading not guilty he was never given opportunity to state his case. [19] the evidence was led and the representatives of the parties submitted arguments, the arbitrator found that the disciplinary hearing was procedurally flawed and therefore procedurally unfair. He justified his conclusions as follows (I will in detail quote his reasoning):
DHL%20International%20Namibia%20(Pty)%20Ltd%20v%20Kuritjinga%20(LCA%201-2013)%20%5B2014%5D%20NALCMD%201%20(24%20January%202014).docx