The brief facts of the case are that the respondent who was on “fixed term contract of employment with the appellant approached the GDC after he had failed to recover value for the days which he says he had accrued at the respondent’s. Based on the evidence presented before it both oral and written the GDC ruled that indeed the employee had made out a good case for payment for the days he had accrued when he was still in the appellant’s employment. To that end the GDC ordered the appellant to pay the respondent for those days More
This is an appeal against an arbitral award.
The first and second respondents are former employees of the appellant. They were employed in the capacities of shift manager and factory manager respectively on fixed term contracts. Such contracts were for a two year period. The last contracts ran from the 1st of April 2012 to the 31st of March 2014. More
The brief background of the matter is that the appellant is employed by the respondent. He was employed at the Mazowe Catchment as Loss Control Officer from 16 October 2006 to August 2011. It has been submitted that his duties involved safeguarding and protecting ZINWA resources from damages, theft and any other potential losses and hazards. It is alleged that in April 2011 during the Easter Holiday the appellant went to Goromonzi Water Supply Station and took away some pipes belonging to ZINWA without authority from his superiors. By then he was on study leave. It has also been submitted... More
Appellant’s attorney summarised the grounds of appeal in triplicate thus;
1. The Health Services Board (HSB) erred in failing to find that the charges against appellant were not proven.
2. HSB erred by imposing a penalty not provided for by the Health Service Regulations. (The attorney did not bother to cite the Regulations ‘ reference numbers).
3. HSB erred in failing to find that the dismissal was unreasonable and irrational. More
Applicant applied to this Court for condonation of a belated application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. The application was made in terms of Rule 14 as read with Rule 32 of the Labour Court Rules, 2017. Respondent opposed the application.
At the onset of oral argument respondent raised three (3) points in limine which shall be dealt with in turn. More
