Appellant was in the employ of the Respondent as Finance and Administration Director. Allegations of misconduct were levelled against in terms of the National Code of Conduct, that is, contravening section 4 (a), it being alleged that he was guilty of gross incompetence or inefficiency in the performance of his duties. The brief allegations were that Appellant had presented a financial report containing incorrect information which was calculated to mislead Respondent’s Board. In the hearing several witnesses were called to testify against the Appellant. It is important to make the observation that none of the witnesses gave any evidence to... More
Appellant appealed to this Court against his dismissal from employment by Respondent. The appeal was made in terms of section 92D of the Labour Act Chapter 28:01.
Respondent opposed the appeal. The grounds of appeal read thus,
1. The Chairperson of the Disciplinary Committee grossly erred and misdirected himself in making a finding that the Appellant was grossly inefficient in the performance of his duties in circumstances where the allegations were not supported by any of the evidence led in oral testimony.
2. The Chairperson of the Disciplinary Committee grossly erred and misdirected himself in shifting the burden of proof... More
By an award dated the 28th February, 2014, the Arbitrator found that Respondent had been unfairly dismissed and ordered that she be reinstated to her position without loss of salary and benefits. In the event of reinstatement not being possible, Respondent was to be paid damages. More
On the 16th December 2022 at Harare Designated Agent G. Mudzengi issued a determination. He ordered appellant (employer) to reinstate respondent (employee) or pay her damages for loss of
employment. The employer then appealed the determination to this Court in terms of section 92D of the Labour Act Chapter 28:01. More
The present judgment was prepared in 2018. There has been a delay in its handdown. l tender my most sincere apologies to the parties.
This is an appeal against a determination of the Appeals Committee handed down on 9th of January, 2013 in which the Appeals Committee ruled that there was no relationship between the then highest worker grade (grade 9) and the newly introduced grade 13. The Appeals Committee also found that the Appellant’s salary was not reduced by reason of the evaluation exercise and therefore there was no unfair labour practice. More
