This is an appeal against the Disciplinary Authority’s approval of a guilty verdict and penalty as recommended by the Disciplinary Committee.
- Appellant was in Respondent’s employ as a Principal Immigration Officer. She was based at the Harare International Airport.
- On the 21st February, 2015 Appellant was on duty on the arrivals side, clearing passengers who had alighted from Fastjet Airlines coming from Tanzania as well as passengers from Johannesburg who had alighted from Air Zimbabwe flight.
- During the clearing process Appellant cleared a passenger who was travelling on a Mozambican passport, bearing the name Valentine Takang.
-... More
On 13th December 2012 at Harare, Arbitrator D. Mudzengiissued an arbitration award. In terms thereof he dismissed Appellants’ complaint against Respondent for failure to pay them for overtime worked. Appellants then appealed to this Court against the award. Respondent opposed the appeal.
Working hours and payment therefor in the sector Respondent operates in are governed by a CBA called Collective Bargaining Agreement: Commercial Sectors S.I. 45/93. It is common cause that Appellants worked more hours than the stipulated hours. However Respondent argued that it compensated for the overtime by giving Appellants 9 days-off every month. This was per minutes of... More
Appellant’s grounds of appeal complained that,
“1. The National Employment Council Negotiating Committee erred in failing to appreciate that the Respondent’s disciplinary process was flawed as it negated and breached the principles of natural justice by inter alia; …
2. Even assuming but not admitting that the disciplinary process was properly conducted the NEC’s Negotiating Committee (“NEC”) erred and seriously misdirected itself when it failed to address and concede the fact that Appellant had been reinstated on 17 May 2012 and accordingly was entitled to his back pay.
3. Appellant was not allowed to address in mitigation before the decision... More
The background of the matter is that the appellant is employed by the respondent as a relationship manager.
On 15 April 2008, the applicant was appointed as a manager and since his appointment in 2008, he had use of a Nissan/J85/D/CAB. He was allowed to purchase the vehicle in 2010 and in 2011 he was given a second motor vehicle, a Nissan NP300 which he continues to use to this date.
In November 2015, some 4 years later, the respondent wrote to him, the contents of which letter aggrieved the appellant who raised a grievance with the respondent. The complaint... More
This is an appeal against the determination of Respondent Works Council sitting as an Appeals Committee which determination was handed down on the 20th November, 2019. The determination effectively upheld an earlier determination by the Respondent Disciplinary Committee finding Appellant guilty and imposing thereafter a dismissal penalty. The appeal is opposed. More
