This is an application for condonation of late noting of an appeal. The application stems from the determination of a workplace Disciplinary Authority appointed in terms of the Labour (National Employment Code of Conduct) Regulations, Statutory Instrument 15 of 2006, (the National Code), in terms of which the applicant was found guilty of misconduct and dismissed from employment. More
On the 23rd January 2023 at Harare, the Registrar of Labour issued a determination which ruled as follows,
“1. The concrete products fall under CBA for Construction Industry as they have been dealing with concrete products.
2. The National Employment Council for Brick Making and Clay Products Manufacturing Industry continue operating but exclude all concrete products.
3. Both NEC to co-exist as primary and ancillary functions accordingly in terms of their scope of coverage.
I so determine.”
Then appellant appealed the ruling to this Court in terms of section 46 of the Labour Act Chapter 28:01 hereafter called the Act. More
It is clear that the parties are locked in dispute as to the extent of coverage of their respective sector or industry. The quoted statutory provision specifically refers such dispute to the Labour Court for determination.Respondent argued in general terms that the Labour Court is prohibited from issuing interdicts. The argument relates to the specific order which the Court may grant. That aspect of the case should be raised in due course when the parties deal with the merits of the case. The main point as appears from Section 46 is that this Court has jurisdiction over the matter. More
This is an application for rescission of default judgment upliftment of bar and condonation of late filing of heads of argument. Respondent was granted an arbitral award in his favour on 25 September 2012. Applicant appealed against the arbitral award on 2 October 2012. There was no notice from the Registrar, in terms of Rule 15(2) of this Court’s Rules SI 59/06, to the Respondent. Nevertheless Respondent filed his response on 13 November 2012 which he says was served on Applicant’s legal practitioners on 14 November 2012. Applicant filed heads of argument on 17 January 2013. On 29 January 2013... More
The facts of the matter are that the applicant was employed as a truck driver by the second respondent in or around January 2011. On 4 September 2012, the applicant was charged with having committed acts of conduct or omission inconsistent with the fulfilment of the express or implied conditions of his contract in terms of S I 15 of 2006. This was in spite of there being a registered code. The applicant was found guilty and dismissed by the disciplinary hearing committee. This decision was confirmed by the internal appeals authority on 11 October 2012. The applicant proceeded to... More
