The First Respondent is employed by the Appellant. First Respondent was suspended from employment by the Appellant. The Appellant also reported the matter to the police resulting in the arrest of the First Respondent. The First Respondent’s bail conditions barred him from visiting his workplace. It is also common cause that First Respondent’s suspension was without salary and benefits. First Respondent referred his matter to Second Respondent and the latter determined that First Respondent’s suspension was illegal having regard to the provisions of the Code of Conduct. Appellant is dissatisfied with the decision and has approached this for relief. More
On the 21st September 2021 at Harare the Designated Agent (DA) of the NEC Banking Undertaking made a determination. He set aside the terminations of Respondents’ employment by Appellant. He further ordered Appellant to either reinstate the Respondents or alternatively pay them damages in lieu of reinstatement. Appellant then appealed to this Court in terms of Section 92D of the Labour ActChapter 28:01 hereafter called the Act. Respondents opposed the appeal. More
On 9th December 2010 the NEC Banking made a determination. In terms thereof it upheld an earlier ruling in terms of which Appellant was ordered to reinstate Respondent’s employment. Appellant then appealed to this Court against the NEC’s determination More
This is an appeal against both an arbitral award reinstating respondent to the appellant’s employ and a subsequent quantification of damages. The respondent was employed by the appellant as a security officer. More
Applicant’s sole ground for review is worded as follows,
“The NEC Appeals Board misdirected itself in failing to deal with the two appeals separately, as directed by the order of the Labour Court dated 20 October 2011. By lumping the two appeals the NEC Appeals Board acted unprocedurally and in defiance of the order of the Labour Court.” More
