This is an appeal against a decision by an arbitrator. The arbitrator awarded a 20% increase to A1 engineering employees in the Engineering Sector covered by the National Employment Council for the period
1 March 2011 to 28 February 2012. More
Applicant applied to this Court for the rescission of a default judgment. The application was made in terms of Section 92C of the Labour Act Chapter 28:01 as read with Rule 40 of the Labour Court Rules, 2017. Respondents opposed the application.
After hearing oral argument the court upheld respondent’s point in limine and struck out applicant’s answering affidavit which had been filed without the Court’s leave per Rule 14 (5). More
During his tenure as Deputy Head at Kuredza Primary School, appellant was charged with acts of misconduct in terms of Section 44 (2) as read with paragraphs1, 3, 13 and 24 of the Public Service Regulations 2000, Statutory Instrument 1 of 2000.
The allegations were that:-
(a) Appellant violated procurement procedures when he sourced quotations from unreputable services providers and negotiated with one of the service providers to lower prices that resulted in price trading.
(b) He wilfully absented from work by going to attend NAAZ sporting activities from 3rdJuly, 2017 to 19th July 2017 attending regional competitions in Kenya... More
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
