On 28 October 2016 after hearing the applicant and counsel I granted an order in favour of the applicant herein. On 31 October 2016 a letter by the first respondent’s Counsel addressed to the Registrar requesting written reasons for my decision was placed before me. More
The Respondent was employed by the Appellant as a shift leader and maintenance for a period of more than five years. His duties were to take care of repairs and maintenance of factory machines which included extruders, expellers, grinding mills and other machines. It is alleged that on 26 September 2012 he switched off extruder number 1 and increased the speed of extruder number 2. The increased speed caused extruder 2 to be congested resulting in production stoppage. The stoppage caused a production loss of $1 487. Respondent was charged in terms of section 4 of SI 15 of 2006.... More
Respondent was in the employ of Appellant, a firm of legal practitioners. Following the termination of her contract, Respondent approached the Ministry of Labour Offices. Attempts at conciliation failed and the matter was referred to arbitration. The arbitrator found in favour of Respondent. Appellant is not satisfied with this award and has appealed to this Court. More
This is a consolidated matter between Cut Rag Processors and its employees. Luckson Zvenyika, together with Nyangawo and 13 Others were employed in different capacities by Cut Rag Processors “Cut Rag”. It was alleged that the employees engaged in an unlawful work stoppage. Zvenyika was the Chairman of the Workers Committee he was charged and upon conviction a penalty of dismissal was meted out. Zvenyika noted an appeal to the Grievance and Disciplinary Committee whose decision was that Zvenyika be reinstated from the date of dismissal without loss of salary and benefits. The employer Cut Rag dissatisfied by the order... More
This is an appeal against an arbitral award.
The term of reference which the arbitrator was to consider was,
“whether or not the employee is entitled to a retrenchment package and the remedy thereof.”
To determine this term, the Arbitrator considered both parties submissions. It was not an issue that the shop Appellant worked in, was closed due to non-viability of the shop. It was also not in dispute that Respondent offered Appellant alternative jobs which she refused to take. More
