ACC investigators set to drag employer to court
Squabble over benefits
The investigators took exception to the fact that those hired before them in the same position received benefits they were not offered.
Four senior investigators of the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) are challenging a decision taken by an arbitrator of the Office of the Labour Commissioner, saying it didn’t afford them the opportunity to present evidence in a labour dispute involving their employer over fringe benefits.
The investigators - Daniel Muchokwe, Werner Ngashikua, Selma Kalumbu and Timotheus Utale – said they were appointed to their positions without any vehicle allowances, a privilege that senior investigators appointed before them enjoy.
Labour arbitrator Fabiola Katjivena ruled in favour of the ACC that the investigators - who had been appointed between December 2018 and August 2019 - were not justified to get vehicle allowance benefits similar to what investigators appointed prior to them received as a condition of service.
In his affidavit, Muchokwe said it was their expectation that they would be afforded the opportunity to present evidence to support their dispute.
“As applicants, our expectations were that we would be afforded an opportunity to present oral and documentary evidence to support our dispute and expand on our summary of dispute,” he wrote.
“[The] fourth respondent [Katjivena] proceeded to making a determination on the merits, without allowing the party - specifically us the applicants who referred the dispute to the Office of the Labour Commissioner - an opportunity to lead oral evidence personally and through our witnesses to support the merits of our case,” he said.
Not fair
Muchokwe also asked the Labour Commissioner to consider appointing another arbitrator to the matter.
“The Labour Commissioner’s office is indeed a tribunal; however, the arbitrator presiding over arbitration hearings cannot be permitted to deprive parties of their right to a fair hearing and to present evidence to support their claims under the disguise of resolving the dispute in a speedy manner with minimum legal formalities,” he said.
“The arbitrator was not fair in deciding on the merits without allowing the applicants an opportunity to advance their case,” he added.
The aggrieved investigators have since given notice that they intend to approach the High Court to review, correct and set aside the arbitrator’s ruling.
The investigators - Daniel Muchokwe, Werner Ngashikua, Selma Kalumbu and Timotheus Utale – said they were appointed to their positions without any vehicle allowances, a privilege that senior investigators appointed before them enjoy.
Labour arbitrator Fabiola Katjivena ruled in favour of the ACC that the investigators - who had been appointed between December 2018 and August 2019 - were not justified to get vehicle allowance benefits similar to what investigators appointed prior to them received as a condition of service.
In his affidavit, Muchokwe said it was their expectation that they would be afforded the opportunity to present evidence to support their dispute.
“As applicants, our expectations were that we would be afforded an opportunity to present oral and documentary evidence to support our dispute and expand on our summary of dispute,” he wrote.
“[The] fourth respondent [Katjivena] proceeded to making a determination on the merits, without allowing the party - specifically us the applicants who referred the dispute to the Office of the Labour Commissioner - an opportunity to lead oral evidence personally and through our witnesses to support the merits of our case,” he said.
Not fair
Muchokwe also asked the Labour Commissioner to consider appointing another arbitrator to the matter.
“The Labour Commissioner’s office is indeed a tribunal; however, the arbitrator presiding over arbitration hearings cannot be permitted to deprive parties of their right to a fair hearing and to present evidence to support their claims under the disguise of resolving the dispute in a speedy manner with minimum legal formalities,” he said.
“The arbitrator was not fair in deciding on the merits without allowing the applicants an opportunity to advance their case,” he added.
The aggrieved investigators have since given notice that they intend to approach the High Court to review, correct and set aside the arbitrator’s ruling.
Comments
Namibian Sun
No comments have been left on this article