Appellant was dismissed from Respondent’s employment as a data capture clerk on allegations of contravening the Respondent company code of conduct. He appealed to the internal appeal structures without success. He has now appealed to this court against both the guilt verdict and the dismissal penalty which were confirmed by the Respondent’s internal appeals body. More
At the onset of oral argument in this Court respondent raised a point in limine which appellant opposed. The point was that appellant filed 2 documents which were not part of the proceedings in the tribunals a quo. It is expatiated in respondent’s heads of argument as follows:
“10. The first document purportedly signed on the 23rd of November 2019 seeks to suggest that cash deposits of RTGS $400 and RTGS $1 700 had been authorised by Susan Togarepi, also known as Susan Nyaradzo Mushaike, whilst the second document purportedly signed on the 25th of November 2019 seeks to suggest... 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. More
This is an appeal against the decision of the Chief Executive Officer finding appellant guilty and dismissing her from work on allegations of misconduct at the work place. Brief facts of the matter are that appellant who was in the respondent’s employment was charged with misconduct emanating from the facts that she had acted negligently and caused loss of the employer’s ticket book. She was found guilty of the infraction. She appealed to the Chief Executive Officer without success hence the instant appeal. More
Appellant appealed to this Court against her dismissal from employment by Respondent. She was charged with seven (7) counts of misconduct. These were violations of Group D – Most serious offences – category 25. She was acquitted of four of the counts but found guilty on 3 of the counts.Her ground of appeals were three- fold as follows,
“1. The Grievances and Disciplinary Committee erred and misdirected itself in finding Appellant guilty of Count 1 of the charges, as the duties she is charged with do not fall into duties assigned either expressly or tacitly.
2. The Grievances and Disciplinary... More
