This is an appeal against the decision of the Arbitrator who made an order in favour of the employee against the now Appellant Company.
The brief facts of the case are that the Respondent took up issue with the Appellant Company over his employment status and benefits which were due to him. When the Appellant Company failed to resolve the issue in question within the prescribed time limits Respondent approached a Labour Officer for conciliation. This failed and the matter ended up at the Arbitrator’s desk. More
Respondent was in the employ of the Appellant as a Production Manager before being elevated to the position of Acting Divisional Manager. Respondent was subsequently re-appointed to Production Manager which resulted in matter being referred to conciliation. Conciliation failed and the matter was referred to arbitrator. The Arbitrator found in favour of Respondent. More
This is an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court in terms of section 92F (2) of the Act and Rule 43 of the Labour Court Rules, 2017. The application is unopposed as the Respondents did not file any responses after being served with the application.
BRIEF FACTS More
The complaints set out above relate to the labour officer’s (L.O.) ruling and his conduct of the proceedings before him. It is evidently necessary to hear the labour officer’s comments regarding his impugned conduct. For him to comment he has to be cited as a party. It is a longstanding practice, if not a legal requirement, to cite an official whose conduct is condemned. This allows him to comment on the allegations and thus give the adjudicator a fuller picture of the case before him. For that reason I consider that the point in limine was well taken. More
This appeal arises from a decision rendered by a Designated Agent (Hereinafter the D.A) for the National Employment Council for Lumber Milling, Timber Processing and Trading Industry in Zimbabwe in two separate but similar matters relating to the dismissal of the first and second respondents respectively. More
