This is an appeal against the decision of an Arbitrator sitting at Harare. The grounds of appeal are as follows:
1. “The Honourable Arbitrator erred and grossly misdirected himself when he ruled that the application by Claimant was out of time as if conducting of the hearing was supposed to be initiated by Claimant. The onus to discipline is upon the employer (Respondent) hence he is the one who failed to constitute a disciple nay (disciplinary) committee on time in terms of the provisions of the ZIMRA Code of Conduct.
2. The Honourable Arbitrator grossly misdirected himself at law in... More
This is an appeal against the decision of an Arbitrator. The background to the appeal is as follows
The appellant was employed by the Respondent. He was charged with wilfully applying a wrong use, or unauthorised purpose to assets or property; or alternatively carrying out an act which is inconsistent with the express or implied conditions of the employment contract. More
Respondent was charged of theft of company property in terms of the Appellant’s own internal Code of Conduct. Criminal proceedings were instituted and he was convicted. The disciplinary proceedings found that on the basis of the evidence before the Committee, it was not possible to conclude that Respondent had stolen the motor in question. He was however found guilty and dismissed on the basis of the conviction in the criminal matter.
Appellant’s own internal Code of Conduct was registered in the early 1990s. the National Employment Council (NEC) registered a Code of Conduct for the Industry in 2012. More
On 20th February 2012 the NEC for the Clothing Industry made a determination. In terms thereof it dismissed Appellant’s appeal against her dismissal from employment by Respondent. Appellant then appealed to this Court against the NEC’s determination.
Appellant worked for Respondent as a Production Supervisor in Harare. In that capacity she had access to labels, trims and zips. Respondent makes clothing products forTruworths. The merchandise is identified by labels. The label is the brand or “signature” of Respondent. One hundred and nine (109) such labels were found at Appellant’s house. Investigations carried out showed that Appellant and a colleague took... More
This is an appeal against the manner in which the appellant and the respondent parted ways. Before the hearing commenced the court inquired of the appellant’s counsel on what decision was being appealed. Counsel for the appellant advised the court that it was the decision of the hearing officer which was being appealed. The decision (dated 2 December 2020) reads and I quote: More
