The Appellant was employed by the Respondent as Maintenance Clerk. He was arraigned before a disciplinary authority on 29th of January, 2008 facing two offences under the relevant Code viz. Offence 4: Refusing duty or legitimate order (means deliberate failure to follow legitimate order.) Offence 13: Neglect of duty or responsibility (means carelessly and intentionally ignoring one’s duty or responsibility). More
This matter was set down as an appeal against the guilty verdict and dismissal penalty which was meted out on appellant employee following a labour dispute pitting him and the respondent employer.
On the hearing date the appellant abandoned the appeal ground dealing with the guilty verdict but proceeded to address the court on the dismissal penalty. This judgment therefore addresses the penalty issue only. It is the appellant’s contention that dismissal was a drastic remedy in his case. He maintains that since the PSC regulations underscore the need for punishment to be corrective first it is his considered view... More
I am dealing with this matter in terms of section 89(2) (a) of the Labour Act (Chapter 28:01). The parties to this matter have filed the requisite documents. The Registrar wrote to the Appellant informing her of the need to pay the Sherriff’s costs to enable the matter to be set down. There was no response to this letter. The matter has thus been referred to me for directions. As stated earlier, I have noted that both parties have filed their heads of argument and therefore I will proceed to determine the matter. More
At the hearing of this matter, the parties agreed that the court should proceed to hear the application for review first.
The applicant was in this case employed in a managerial position by the respondent. She was alleged to have committed several acts of misconduct. A hearing was conducted and the applicant was found guilty and dismissed.
She was aggrieved by the decision to both find her guilty and to dismiss her. She noted an appeal with the Appeals Committee. More
This is an appeal against an arbitral award in favour of respondent. Appellants were employed by respondent. Initially they were employed by Air Zimbabwe Holdings Ltd. In 2009 appellants were sent notices of intention to retrenchment. The retrenchment was challenged and there were protracted negotiations. Subsequently retrenchment packages were agreed to on an individual basis. Air Zimbabwe Holdings disbanded in 2012 forming respondent and Air Zimbabwe (Pvt) Ltd. More
