This matter was set down as an application for the stay of attachment in execution of a default consent order which was granted by the Court in a matter where Applicant employer and Respondent employee were involved in a labour dispute where the Respondent had been dismissed from employment by the Applicant. More
On the 10th July 2017 at Mutare, applicant in her capacity as a Designated Agent issued a ruling. She ordered 1st respondent (employer) to “restart the (retrenchment) process afresh.” The 2nd to 37th respondents were the employees who had been retrenched. Apparently, the employer did not comply with the ruling. Applicant then applied to this Court for the confirmation of her ruling in terms of section 93(5a) of the Labour Act Chapter 28:01, hereafter called the Act. More
This appeal raiseS one issue for consideration, the interpretation of fees as used in section 8.3 of Statutory Instrument 60 of 2013 the Collective Bargaining Agreement: Welfare and Educational Institutions, “the agreement”.
The respondents are employed by the appellant in different capacities. In terms of theapplicable Collective Bargaining Agreement the appellant was supposed to contribute 75% of fees for respondents as a benefit. A dispute ensued where it was alleged that appellant failed to comply with the provision of the agreement. The matter was referred to an arbitrator to determine whether the term fees used in the agreement included tuition... More
On the 1st November 2021 at Harare, F. Mutambirwa N.O. in her capacity as a
Designated Agent (DA) made a determination. She ordered appellant (employer) to pay
respondent (employee) various amounts of money for outstanding service pay, notice pay,
leave pay, overtime, unpaid wages and housing allowance. The employer then appealed the
determination to this Court in terms of section 92D of the Labour Act Chapter 28:01. The
employee opposed the appeal. More
The Appellant is appealing against the decision of the Appeals Committee. The grounds of appeal are as follows:-
“The Respondent erred by failing to produce minutes of the Appeals Committee. The ‘purported’ minutes ‘even’ determination are mischievous and calculated to cause miscarriage of justice. The ‘purported’ admissions in the ‘so called minutes’ are all a product of malicious falsehoods contradictory to the Appellant’s grounds of appeal before the Appeals Committee and a biased and futile effort to uphold traverse justice. The recordby the Respondent is misleading and not reflective of the proceedings. More
