This is an application for condonation for late noting of appeal. The facts of the matter are as follows. The applicant was employed by the respondent. The applicant, together with other employees were charged with misconduct it being alleged that they stole from the respondent and absented themselves from work. The applicant was initially acquitted on the theft charge but was convicted on the charge of absenteeism. The applicant pleaded guilty to the charge of absenteeism. An appeal to the appeals officer resulted in the applicant being found guilty on the theft charge and he was dismissed from employment. The... More
This is an appeal against the decision of the Appeal Officer’s determination which upheld the decision to find the appellant guilty of acts of misconduct and to dismiss him.
At the hearing of the appeal the respondent’s representative raised preliminary points which challenged the grounds of appeal filed in casu. More
The applicants were employed by the respondent in different capacities. The applicants raised a grievance claiming they were being underpaid and nonpayment of shift allowances. The matter was subsequently referred to an arbitrator Honourable Chavura. The arbitral award, whose interpretation is the basis of this application was made in the following terms
“… I order that they (applicants) be paid the balance of their wages and the outstanding shift allowances, plus interest of 30% per annum. The union should assist the employer in calculating the outstanding wages and allowances …” More
Appellant appealed to this Court against his dismissal from employment by Respondent. The grounds of appeal read,
“1. No evidence was led to prove the allegations for example there were no witness (sic) to substantiate the allegations.
2. The Appellant was convicted on mere allegations.
3. The Appellant gave evidence which was not contradicted and therefore should have been acquitted. The evidence given by the Appellant shows that he had not committed any form of misconduct and therefore the finding of guilt was not justified.
4. There was no proper trial.” More
