This is an application for condonation of late filing a notice of opposition and upliftment of the bar operating against the applicant employer. The applicant is out of time by 28 days to file its opposition in LC/H/1164/22 which is a review matter at the instance of the respondent employee. The employee is opposed to the grant of the condonation relief. He cites the fact that the employer has no good excuse for the default and that it does not have merited opposition to his review application. More
The Appellant was employed by the Respondent as an International Truck Driver in 1991. On the 8th of August 2013 Appellant in the course of duty drove from Mimosa to Boksburg. He had been allocated 1600 litres of diesel for the journey. The truck however ran out of fuel 60km before the destination resulting in an additional 200 litres being sent to Appellant in order to enable him to reach Boksburg. It is common cause the Appellant was travelling in a convoy with other trucks belonging to the Respondent. Upon his return to Harare the Appellant was notified to attend... More
Applicant applied to this Court for the review of his dismissal from employment by Respondent. The application was made in terms of Section 89(1) of the Labour Act Chapter 28:01 as read with Rule 20(1) of the Labour Court Rules, 2017. Respondent opposed the application. More
This is an application for a review of the decision of the first respondent which refused to uphold the exception to the misconduct charges which had been leveled against the applicant.
The brief facts of the matter are that on 18 June 2012 the applicant was brought before the first respondent facing charges of contravening SI 171/ 10 which is the 2nd respondent’s code of conduct . In particular it was alleged that he had committed the offence of “fighting or riotous behavior “at his workplace contrary to the spirit of the code of conduct. More
This is an appeal against the decision of the respondent to dismiss the appellant from employment after two hearings that were conducted at the workplace.
The brief history of the dispute is as follows:
The appellant was employed by the respondent on 1 October 2006 as a binner working in the stores department as shown by Annexutre “A” (i.e. the contract of employment). On 21 May 2013 the appellant was dismissed from employment after being charged with refusing to comply with a lawful instruction that was given by a person in authority. It was alleged that on Wednesday 15 May... More
