d) of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01].
The factual background to the matter is as follows:
The applicant was employed by the respondent as a Sales and Marketing Manager. The applicant fell ill and had to proceed on statutory sick leave. After the expiry of the statutory leave days, a qualified medical practitioner having recommended retirement on medical grounds, the applicant appeared before the ZESA Medical Board. He appeared on two separate occasions before the Board. What happened at the Medical Board is subject to different interpretations by both parties. The applicant alleges that on the two separate occasions the... More
This is an application for upliftment of bar and condonation of late filing of heads of argument.
The applicant filed an appeal with this court on 17 May 2013. On 5 June 2013 the respondent filed its response. In terms of r 19(1)(a) of the Labour Court Rules S I 59 of 2006, the applicant was supposed to file its heads of argument within fourteen days of receiving the response from the respondent. The failure to comply with r 19(1)(a) has resulted in the applicant being barred in terms of r 19(3)(b). More
This is an appeal against two interim awards and a quantification award. Appellant was employed by respondent in the human resources department. On 14 January 2010 she was dismissed from employment for misconduct. She appealed against her dismissal. On 16 December 2011 this Court set aside her dismissal and ordered respondent to conduct a re-hearing on penalty. Pending the outcome of the re-hearing, appellant was to remain on suspension without pay and benefits. More
This is an appeal against a determination by the Chairperson of the Appeals Committee which determination was handed down on 15 October 2020. The material background facts to the matter are as follows;
The three Respondents in this matter were all employed by the Applicant. They were all separately charged with an act of misconduct namely “gross negligence” under and in terms of the relevant Code of Conduct for the Printing and Packaging Industry. More
This judgment concerns a matter which has a sad and long history of it being dealt with piecemeal in the sense that it has had more than one judgment handed down on it based on its technical niceties of compliance with the rules in one respect or the other. Resultantly the merits of the main appeal have not been attended to yet the matter has been enrolled more than six times since 2012 to date all on technical niceties thus creating unnecessary backlog for the Labour Court. More
