The appellant is challenging the decision of the Negotiating Committee dated 22 March, 2011 which decision upheld an earlier determination by the Mashonaland Local Joint Committee to reinstate the five (5) respondents without loss of salary and benefits from the date of dismissal.
The material background facts to the matter are as follows;
The five (5) respondents were all employed by the appellant in various capacities that included a shop salesmen, a storekeeper and a till operator. They were all employed to work within one of the appellant’s stores. During the period 8 April 2010 to 19 August 2010 two... More
Appellant was employed by the Respondent as an overseer. On 23 February 2009 he was suspended from employment pending a disciplinary hearing. The allegations against him were that on 10 February 2009 at 1400 hours he took part in an unlawful collective job action. He was alleged to have left his work station without authority and sat at Mutondo square with other participating employees. A disciplinary hearing was subsequently held and he was found guilty and was dismissed from employment. He appealed to the General Manager and subsequently to the National Employment Council for Chemicals and Fertilizers Manufacturing Industry but... More
Respondent filed its heads of argument on 23January 2013, two years after being served with Appellant’s heads. In terms of rule19 (2)(a) of this court’s rules, Respondent was enjoined to file his heads of argument within 14days of receipt of Appellant’s heads. The Respondent is barred and the appeal is rendered unopposed in terms of rule19(3)(a) of the Labour Court Rules (SIJ9/06). In terms of the Labour Court rules I am proceeding to deal with the matter on the merits as unopposed. More
This is an application for condonation of late noting of an appeal. It is trite that in order for an application of this nature to succeed, the applicant must give a reasonable explanation for:
1. The inordinate delay.
2. Reasons for the delay.
3. Prospects of success on the merits. More
