Dear Editor,
Two recent court rulings have seen the intent to appeal. Are there similarities in the intention to appeal the rulings? The rulings referred to are the NIS pension case involving Mr. Zainul and the striking Linden nurses’ salaries deductions. In the NIS case the reason offered for appeal was the employer was not a party to the case and if the ruling is allowed to stand the state agency can become bankrupt. In the Linden nurses’ case, it was posited that the intent to appeal was based on protection of industrial principles in disciplinary measures. So, in each case the state trumps the employees. One position posits bankruptcy while in the other the tools used to discipline staff would not be utilised. Are these appeals more of a face saving tactic in view of the adverse rulings against the state?
Sincerely,
Shamshun Mohamed
