Central Bank of Lesotho (LC/REV 16 of 14) [2016] LSLC 1 (8 February 2016)

Central Bank of Lesotho (LC/REV 16 of 14) [2016] LSLC 1 (8 February 2016)

Complainants were correctly classified as watchmen, not security officers, and their actual working hours (48 per week) were within the statutory maximum for watchmen. Although they qualified as night workers, they already worked reduced hours and were not entitled to additional compensation. The arbitrator erred in awarding compensation for night work.

Citation
[2016] LSLC 1
Parties
Applicant: Central Bank of Lesotho; 1st Respondent: Moseli Shampene; 2nd Respondent: Mahlomola Lehloenya; 3rd Respondent: Nkhahle Mosothoane; 4th Respondent: Moeketsi Mothabeng; 5th Respondent: Seele Lesefa; 6th Respondent: Mahlomola Tsiane; 7th Respondent: Lillo Pitso; 8th Respondent: Tlali Pinda; 9th Respondent: Molise Ramashamole; 10th Respondent: Pusetso Moisa; 11th Respondent: Directorate of Dispute Prevention and Resolution
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
Lesotho
Judgment Date
8 February 2016
Case Number
LC/REV 16 of 14
Procedural Posture
Labour Court Review / Judgment on Review of DDPR Arbitration Award
Outcome
Applicant's review application upheld; arbitrator's award set aside; complainants' counter-claim dismissed; no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
Working Hours, Overtime, Night Work, Employment Classification, Breach of Contract
Source Language
English
Labour Law Working Hours Overtime Night Work Employment Classification Breach of Contract

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Central Bank of Lesotho

Applicant

Moseli Shampene

1st Respondent

Mahlomola Lehloenya

2nd Respondent

Nkhahle Mosothoane

3rd Respondent

Moeketsi Mothabeng

4th Respondent

Seele Lesefa

5th Respondent

Mahlomola Tsiane

6th Respondent

Lillo Pitso

7th Respondent

Tlali Pinda

8th Respondent

Molise Ramashamole

9th Respondent

Pusetso Moisa

10th Respondent

Directorate of Dispute Prevention and Resolution

11th Respondent

Procedural Posture

Labour Court Review / Judgment on Review of DDPR Arbitration Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether complainants were correctly classified as watchmen or security officers
  2. 2 Whether complainants worked hours in excess of statutory or contractual limits
  3. 3 Whether complainants were entitled to overtime or compensation for night work

Ratio Decidendi

Complainants were correctly classified as watchmen, not security officers, and their actual working hours (48 per week) were within the statutory maximum for watchmen. Although they qualified as night workers, they already worked reduced hours and were not entitled to additional compensation. The arbitrator erred in awarding compensation for night work.

Court Disposition

Applicant's review application upheld; arbitrator's award set aside; complainants' counter-claim dismissed; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • Arbitrator's award of compensation for night work is reviewed and set aside.
  • Complainants' counter-claim is dismissed.