On the date of hearing I dismissed the appeal with no order as to costs. I indicated that reasons would follow. These are they;
This is an appeal against the decision of the Disciplinary and Grievance Committee which confirmed Appellant’s conviction and dismissal from employment on contravening section 5.7.1. (ii) of Chemplex Corporation employment Code of Conduct, that is to say;
‘any gross act, conduct or omission not covered in this code which is inconsistent with the express or implied conditions of the employee’s contract’ More
The Applicant was employed by the 2nd Respondent. Following allegations of misconduct she was suspended in terms of the provisions of the National Code of Conduct SI 15/2006. A hearing was thereafter conducted and she was found guilty and was dismissed. Applicant appealed to the Appeals Officer but was unsuccessful. She then appealed to Labour Relations Officer. Conciliation proceedings were conducted but the matter was not settled and was subsequently referred to arbitration. More
On 20 January 2014 at Harare, the Honourable E Maganyani made an arbitration award. In terms thereof he dismissed appellant’s claims of unlawful termination of their employment contracts by respondent. Appellants then appealed to this Court. Respondent opposed the appeal. At the onset of oral argument, appellants abandoned their argument that the Notice of Response was defective. They then focused on their main argument. It was based on the provisions of the Labour (National Employment Code of Conduct) Regulations S.I. 15/06 (hereafter called the Code). Section 5 (c) of the code provides that, More
Applicant has approached this Court in terms of section 93 (7) of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01]. The facts of this matter are somewhat enmeshed. The Court will seek to summarise them hereunder. More
Applicant applied to this Court for the review of her retrenchment by 1st Respondent. The gist of her case is set out in the Founding Affidavit as follows
“7. 1st Respondent unlawful referred her proposed retrenchment to 2nd Respondent whereas the Labour Court provides that the proposed package was supposed to be referred to, the National Employment for Electronics Communications and Allied Industry which is the Employment Council for 1st Respondent
8. 2nd Respondent failed to realise that it had no jurisdiction to confirm the proposed retrenchment package because 1st Respondent had a functional National Employment Council.
11. The 2nd... More
