AND WHEREAS , In the 2nd paragraph and the 3rd sentence, that sentence reads: ‘Applicant was tried and found of guilty of theft and was subsequently dismissed from employment.’ AND WHEREAS , The sentence should read:
“Applicant was tried and found guilty of theft and was subsequently dismissed from employment.”
Judgment LCH/54/24 is accordingly corrected as indicated above. More
This is an application for review against the proceedings of the Respondent’s disciplinary committee that was conducted on 14 September 2022.The applicant was subsequently dismissed on 15 September 2022 More
On the 4th September, 2015 an arbitral award was issued against Applicant in which it was ordered to remit to Respondent an amount of $7 335.32 as union dues.
Applicant filed an appeal against this award. It has filed this application for interim relief seeking in the interim that the arbitral award be stayed pending finalisation of its appeal and as a final order, that the award be stayed permanently.
In agreement with the Respondent’s submission, I find that the final order being sought is incompetent and therefore cannot be granted, as it has the effect allowing the appeal before... More
This is an appeal against an arbitral award.
The respondent is a registered trade union in terms of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01]. It represents employees in the rural district councils of Zimbabwe. The appellant is a rural district council incorporated in terms of the Rural District Council Act [Chapter 29:13].
The claim brought by the respondent before the arbitrator was for union dues arrears for the period July 2014 to April 2015 together with 15% interest on all dues paid after the 5th day of the ensuing month.
The arbitrator found for the respondent and ordered that the appellant... More
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
