Respondent was in the employ of the appellant. The employment relationship was terminated by retrenchment. The appellant decided to pay overtime wages due to respondent from the year 2009 to 2012. Appellant declined to pay overtime wages for the period 2005 to 2008. This resulted in the matter being referred to arbitration. More
Respondent introduced a fourth shift at the workplace and this led to different interpretations of the relevant Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) governing Respondent’s subsidiary. The matter was brought before the Works Council which ruled against the employees. The employees are dissatisfied and have approached the Court for relief. More
This is an appeal against an arbitral award.
The respondents were employed by the appellant in various capacities and claimed that as at 7 May 2014, they were owed salary arrears running from November 2010 to December 2013. They then approached the National Employment Printing’s designated agent for conciliation. Failing this, the matter was referred to arbitration.
The terms of reference for arbitration were;
1. To determine the quantum of outstanding salaries due to the claimants; and;
2. Determine when the amounts should be paid.
In defence against the claim, the appellant contended that there was no basis for the... More
This is an application for condonation of late filing of a rescission of judgment application. Default judgment was entered against the applicant employee on 9 October 2019 when he failed to attend court to prosecute his appeal. The condonation application is opposed by the employer whose view is that the applications lacks merit. The test for condonation of judgment is set out in Jansen v Acavalos 1993 (1) ZLR 216(S). More
Respondent was employed by Appellant on 25 August 2004 as a mechanic. In October 2005 Respondent went to work in Japan. Appellant alleges that by the time Respondent went to Japan the contract of employment had been terminated and Respondent had been given his terminal benefits. Respondent alleges that it is Appellant who sent him to Japan to work as a workshop foreman. Respondent alleges that it was a mere transfer and the contract of employment continued with the same terms and conditions as had been pertaining in Zimbabwe. Respondent further alleges that Appellant continued to pay his salary in... More
