Your email address will not be displayed publicly.
In the alternative, the applicants seek an order that their dismissal was substantively and procedurally unfair. Further, the applicant contended that the chairperson of the internal disciplinary hearing was biased against them when he refused to allow them to be legally represented in a matter involving constitutional issues and after the initiator had shown that he was not opposed to such legal representation.
The reason for their dismissal had nothing to do with discrimination or unfair discrimination. They were dismissed because they failed to comply with the Dress Code. The same would have happened to the four correctional officers who complied with the Dress Code by cutting their hair, had they not carried out the instruction to attend to their hairstyles.
In addition, the Dress Code — as the applicants themselves concede — applies equally to all members of the Department, regardless of their religion or culture, and does not have a disparate impact on any member or class of members, on the grounds of religion or culture.
The applicants were treated fairly.
They were not entitled to legal representation in terms of resolution 1 of They were legally represented by Mr. Casner, an advocate with experience in defending employees of the Department.
They walked out of the disciplinary hearing with full knowledge and appreciation of the consequences. Their claim that the chairperson was biased has no merit.
They themselves say that the alleged bias is based simply on the fact that the chairperson disagreed with their representative.
Their appeals could not be considered because they did not furnish any grounds of appeal, despite being requested to do so on more than one occasion. Consequently their dismissal was rightly confirmed.
It was wholly inadequately pleaded. In addition, the applicants have sought to attack the entire Dress Code without any identification of its unconstitutional features, any identification of the constitutional provisions which it is said to contravene, or indeed any explanation at all of the way in which the Dress Code is alleged to be unconstitutional.
Background facts  The second to the sixth applicants henceforth referred to as the applicants were in the employ of the first respondent, hereafter referred to as the Department or the employer as Correctional officers based at Pollsmoor Prison.
They were members of the first applicant, the union. Whilst in the employ of the Department and in the course of carrying out their duties, the applicants wore dreadlocks.
The Area Commissioner of Pollsmoor Prison in was the second respondent. These officers were also requested to advance reasons on or before 25 Januarywhy corrective action should not be taken against them in the event that they did not comply with the written instruction.
Four correctional officers complied with the instruction by cutting their hair. The applicants refused to carry out the instruction. They were also informed that management was contemplating their suspension from duty. They were required to submit reasons why they should not be suspended.
They made written representations concerning their suspension to the second respondent. The second, fifth and sixth applicants contended that they wore dreadlocks for religious reasons as they were Rastafarians.
The third and fourth applicants stated that they had worn dreadlocks for cultural reasons. Notwithstanding their explanations, on 2 February they were all suspended from duty with immediate effect, pending a disciplinary inquiry. Casner, an advocate, and Mr. Arendse of the union, represented the applicants.
They argued that the applicants were entitled to legal representation based on the provisions of a collective agreement, Resolution 1 of The chairperson declined the request for legal representation.
Casner then asked the chairperson to recuse himself on the ground of bias. The application for recusal was refused. The applicants then walked out of the hearing. On 5 June the hearing was again postponed to 7 June IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA.
HELD AT CAPE TOWN. CASE NO.: C/ Reportable. In the matter between: POLICE AND PRISONS RIGHTS. UNION (POPCRU) First Applicant LEBATLANG E.J. The term "intimate partner violence" (IPV) is often used synonymously with domestic abuse/domestic violence.
Family violence is a broader definition, often used to include child abuse, elder abuse, and other violent acts between family members. The classification and status of Mesoamerican languages.
The language families of Mesoamerica are Mayan, Mixe-Zoquean, Otomanguean, Tequistlatecan, Totonacan, Uto-Aztecan, and Xinkan. Fideisms Judaism is the Semitic monotheistic fideist religion based on the Old Testament's ( BCE) rules for the worship of Yahweh by his chosen people, the children of Abraham's son Isaac (c BCE)..
Zoroastrianism is the Persian monotheistic fideist religion founded by Zarathustra (cc BCE) and which teaches that good must be chosen over evil in order to achieve salvation. A really decisive study is very expensive. For example, when I took part in a phase III trial of the highly effective anti-lymphatic cancer drug rituximab in , the first time I got the drug I had some minor but spectacular side effects (the Shivers).
An study of Factors Affecting on Online Shopping Behavior of Consumers metin2sell.comeep Nagra*, Dr.R Gopal** demographics factor does impact Possession of internet and therefore gender has a significant impact on frequently of on-line.