Appellant appealed to this Court against his dismissal from employment by Respondent.
His grounds of appeal complained that,
“1. The Appellant was not accorded a fair hearing at the work place
and in particular the Respondent refused/neglected to release key witnesses.
The disciplinary proceedings were heavily, flawed and the principles of natural justice and fairness were not adhered to.
The Appellant did not receive adequate training and was not given proper induction. The decision to dismiss the Appellant is too harsh in the circumstances.
4) The Applicant (sic) was not afforded an opportunity to address the disciplinary committee in mitigation.” More
This is an appeal against a determination by the Chief Designated Agent of the Negotiating Committee of the National Employment Council for the Commercial Sectors of Zimbabwe( NECCSZ) which set aside a decision of the Local Joint Committee (of the NECCSZ) and ordered the appellant to reinstate the respondent with no loss of salary or benefits. This aggrieved the appellant leading to the present appeal . Three grounds of appeal are raised. These are that (i) the Negotiating Committee erred and misdirected itself in finding that the respondent was not dishonest and yet it was proven that he had deliberately... More
This is an appeal against the decision of the respondent’s Appeals Committee, which upheld the dismissal of the appellant from employment. The appellant was dismissed from employment following his conviction on misconduct allegations by the respondent’s Disciplinary Committee.
The appellant was employed by the respondent as a Stores Issuer. In March 2014, he was charged with misconduct, the charge being theft, in terms PART B (4) (d) of the Collective Bargaining Agreement: Mining Industry (Code of Conduct) Statutory Instrument 165 of 1992. It was alleged that he stole 15 litres of petrol by making a deliberateover allocation to the Mine’s... More
On 5 June 2015 Arbitrator T Chamisa issued an arbitration award. He ordered respondent to pay appellant a total sum of +US$11 000.00 in respect of back-pay, cash in lieu of leave and damages for loss of employment. Appellant then appealed to this court against the award. Respondent opposed the appeal.
The major bone of contention was the rate (monthly salary) used by the arbitrator to calculate the damages. Appellant stated that his back-pay should be reckoned in two phases. The 1st covers the period January 2013 to May 2014. He stated that in addition to his regular wage he... More
