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
This is a composite application for condonation and extension of time within which to file an application for Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court and an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.
This Court rendered a judgment on 22 April 2024 in which it dismissed Applicants’ appeal against the decision of the Designated Agent. In terms of the Labour Court Rules, 2017, Applicants were supposed to have filed an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court by 22 May 2024. They did not. 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
This is an appeal against the determination of the National Employment Council Tobacco Industry Grievance and Disciplinary Committee (GDC), which upheld the dismissal of the appellant from the respondent’s employment. More
