The appellant was a supervisor based at Holiday Inn Hotel (the hotel) until 26 February 2015 when he was dismissed following disciplinary proceedings.
Following alleged acts of misconduct the appellant was charged in terms of category 5 offence 2 of the respondent’s Code of Conduct. The charge being any conduct or omission inconsistent with the fulfilment of the express or implied conditions of his/her employment.
The basis of the charge were three conducts. According to respondent following a tip off that fraudulent activities were taking place at the hotel through connivance of supervisors, cashiers and waiters specifically by way of... More
The appellant was a school Head. Two posts fell vacant at his school. The posts were advertised. After the requisite procedures had been followed, two people were interviewed. The appellant as Head of the school was part of the panel of interviewers. The other party was his Acting Deputy. The third person was a member of the parent body – School Development Association (SDA). The two candidates were Tendayi Nyahuye, who is also the appellant’ daughter and Susan T. Manquma who is the daughter of the Acting Deputy Head. More
At the hearing of this matter a preliminary issue was raised that the Appellant’s legal practitioners had failed to file Heads of Arguments timeously in terms of Rule 19 of the Labour Court Rules.
The Appellant argued that the operation of the bar is not automatic. It was submitted in this regard that
“The Appellant argues firstly that there is no provision in the Labour Court rules which is to the effect that a party who has not filed its Heads of Argument timeously is barred from being heard on the merits”. More
At the hearing of this matter I upheld two points in limine and struck the matter off the roll. These are the detailed reasons for that decision.
On 4 November 2013 appellant noted an appeal against the interim award of the Arbitrator P Bvumbe and the main award. Though the grounds of appeal indicate that these awards were served on the appellant on 4 October 2013 they were actually served on different dates. The first award which is marked “A” was received by appellant’s legal practitioners on 26 July 2012 having been issued on 21 July 2012. The second award... More
The parties to these matters requested that they be consolidated, that is, the appeal, the review and the cross- appeal. The Court acceded to the request. More
