This is an appeal against a determination of the disciplinary authority of the respondent.
The appellants were employed as auditors by the respondent until 24 June 2014 when they were discharged from service.
During the period 1 January 2013 to 31 December 2013, the appellants were assigned to pre-audit the expenditure vouchers of the Zimbabwe Prisons and Correctional Services (“ZPCS”) whose values ranged from US$1 000-00 and above.
Arising out of the pre-audit, the appellants were charged with misconduct in terms of section 44 (2) (a) as read with the first schedule (section 2) paragraphs 2, 3, 13 (a) and... More
On 25th October 2011 Applicants filed an application in this Court. They prayed for an order to compel Respondent to comply with orders made by the Labour Board of the Export Processing Zones Authority in 2005. The orders by the Board directed Respondent to reinstate Applicants in its employ. Respondent opposed the application. More
This is an appeal against an arbitral award issued by Honourable K M Nhongo on 5 December 2013. The award ruled that the appellants were not entitled to the retrenchment package they were seeking, which package was in terms of a determination made by the Minister of Labour and Social Welfare (“the Minister”). The arbitral award ruled that the appellants were, instead, entitled to a retrenchment package in terms of an agreement they had entered into with the respondent, prior to the Minister’s determination. More
On 5th August 2024at Marondera, 1st respondent, in his capacity as an Arbitrator, issued an award wherein applicant was ordered to pay 2nd respondent an amount of $1,284.00 in respect of underpayment of wages. Applicant than applied to this Court for the review of the award in terms of section 89(1)(d1) as read with section 92 EE of the Labour Act Chapter 28:01 hereafter called the Act, 2nd respondent opposed the application More
Appellant and Respondent engaged in a collective bargaining process with a view to agree on wage, transport and housing allowance increments for January to December 2014. Respondent advocated for an overall increment of 52.2% in wages, transport and housing allowances. Appellant proposed an increment of 2.5% on wages only. Housing and transport allowances were to remain unchanged on appellant’s proposal. A deadlock was declared. The matter was referred to conciliation but was not settled. It was then referred to arbitration and the arbitrator awarded a 10% increment on the basic wages for the employees concerned on 17 March 2014. Appellant... More
