This is an appeal against an arbitral award delivered on 5 January 2016. Appellant is aggrieved by the part of the award that refused her back pay up to the time the employer made the election to pay damages in lieu of reinstatement and also the part that dismissed some special and punitive damages and benefits. The arbitral award in issue states that on 10 March 2014 an award was given which ordered in paragraphs 6 and 7.
“6. That the claimant be and is hereby reinstated More
This is an application for condonation of the late noting of an appeal by the applicant in cases which pitted them and the respondent employer. Judgment was reserved in June 2015 on the understanding that the parties would file their heads of argument after the court had heard oral submissions. The applicants’ heads were not forthcoming until 17 March 2016 when there were brought before the court. On their face they are stamped 23 June 2015 but they did not find their way to the court in time for it to rule on the application. This explains the inordinate delay... More
Applicant applied for the review of disciplinary proceedings against him which were conducted by Respondent. Respondent opposed the application. During oral argument Applicant based his case on the improper composition of the disciplinary committee. Respondent conceded, and rightly so, that the committee was improperly constituted. Such a committee has no authority to conduct disciplinary proceedings, let alone to dismiss an employee. Authority for this proposition is found in the dicta of Sandura JA (as he then was) where he stated that an improperly constituted disciplinary committee “was a fatal irregularity which vitiated the proceedings.” More
The facts of this case emanate from the effects of the Covid-19 pandemic. The pandemic had worldwide implications. The Respondent was obliged to close the doors to several of its hotels. Employees were required to stay at home. Respondent continued up to some stage to pay these employees when they were not offering any work. The record shows that the Respondent had several meetings with the employees’ representatives. Respondent resorted to paying 50% of the wages. It is also common cause that Respondent later retrenched a sizeable of the employees after having notified the Retrenchment Board which Board approved the... More
Appellant worked for Respondent as the Packaging Unit Manager based in Harare. He was found guilty of misconduct and was dismissed from employment. He appealed against the dismissal to Respondent’s Appeal Officer who turned down the appeal. Appellant then appealed to this Court. Respondent opposed the appeal.
The grounds of appeal were four-fold. The first ground alleged violation of “audi alteram partem principles”. It was averred that Appellant was convicted of an offence which was not charged. The complaint dealt with matters of procedure as opposed to substantive matters on the merits. I consider that such procedural issues cannot found... More
