The appellant is a teacher who at the time of dispute was based at Diggleford Primary School. Following allegations of misconduct that he solicited for a bribe and conducted extra lessons he was charged for misconduct. He was found liable on the second charge that he conducted extra lessons and not liable on the first charge. A penalty of $200, a transfer to Mudzi District and a reprimand was imposed.
The appellant appealed against the penalty.
According to the appellant the penalty was excessive considering the gravity of the offence and the circumstance it was committed. More
The brief facts of the matter are that the Applicant was employed by the Respondent as a Finance Manager. The Applicant was eventually charged with serious misconduct in terms of section 4 (a) of the Labour (National Employment Code of Conduct) Regulations SI 15 of 2006. It was alleged that he committed various acts of conduct or omission inconsistent with the fulfilment of the express or implied conditions of his employment. A disciplinary hearing was conducted, he was found guilty and dismissed from employment. The charges are as follows: More
he appellant was employed by the respondent as a Finance Director in December 2007
as evidenced by his contract of employment filed of record. The applicant contends that he was
unlawfully dismissed from employment by the respondent after a disciplinary hearing effective
30 March 2020, as evidenced by the letter of dismissal filed of record. He contends that he
challenged the decision of the employer to dismiss him before this Court and in the Supreme
Court which ruled in his favour on the 7th of March 2023 and his dismissal was set aside. He
avers that it was ordered by... More
The appellant was employed by the respondent as a Finance Director in December 2007 as evidenced by his contract of employment filed of record. The applicant contends that he was unlawfully dismissed from employment by the respondent after a disciplinary hearing effective 30 March 2020, as evidenced by the letter of dismissal filed of record. He contends that he challenged the decision of the employer to dismiss him before this Court and in the Supreme Court which ruled in his favour on the 7th of March 2023 and his dismissal was set aside. He avers that it was ordered by... More
This is an application for confirmation of a draft ruling. The application is made in terms of section 93 (5a) of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01] ( “The Act” ).
History
When the matter initially came before the Labour Court, the 2nd respondent raised some constitutional issues and the matter was referred to the constitutional court, the constitutional Court struck the matter off its Roll.
The matter was then set down again before the Labour Court for the court to deal with the merits of the application. More
