On the 1th August 2023 Respondent’s disciplinary authority issued a final written warning to Appellant. The warning is valid for 12(twelve) months, Appellant then appealed to this Court in terms of section 92D of the Labour Act Chapter 28:01. Respondent opposed the appeal. More
This is an application for leave to appeal against the decision of this court that was made on 7 August 2015. This court upheld the arbitrator’s decision to disallow the employer from including new evidence. This court in its findings stated that
“The respondents were convicted and dismiss from employment. It would appear the appellant just wants to bolster its judgment in its favour. Is the appellant trying to prove that the dismissal was unfair or that not sufficient evidence was led to warrant the dismissal of the respondents” More
This is an appeal against a determination of the National Employment Council (“NEC”) Appeals Board for the Banking Undertaking.
The respondent is a former employee of the appellant. She was employed as a bank teller, when, on 26 March 2010, she declared a shortfall in the amount of US$1 160-00. She was charged of “gross negligence causing serious loss to the bank” which is a Category D offence, section 11 (15) of the Code of Conduct for the Banking Undertaking, SI 273 of 2000. Following a disciplinary hearing, she was found guilty and dismissed from employment. More
The First Respondent is employed by the Appellant. First Respondent was suspended from employment by the Appellant. The Appellant also reported the matter to the police resulting in the arrest of the First Respondent. The First Respondent’s bail conditions barred him from visiting his workplace. It is also common cause that First Respondent’s suspension was without salary and benefits. First Respondent referred his matter to Second Respondent and the latter determined that First Respondent’s suspension was illegal having regard to the provisions of the Code of Conduct. Appellant is dissatisfied with the decision and has approached this for relief. More
On the 21st September 2021 at Harare the Designated Agent (DA) of the NEC Banking Undertaking made a determination. He set aside the terminations of Respondents’ employment by Appellant. He further ordered Appellant to either reinstate the Respondents or alternatively pay them damages in lieu of reinstatement. Appellant then appealed to this Court in terms of Section 92D of the Labour ActChapter 28:01 hereafter called the Act. Respondents opposed the appeal. More
