“Appellant in this matter was employed as a standby driver for a period of four years. On the 3rd of January 2015, appellant was called to ferry employees on standby from the mine to slymes dam. On that particular day it was raining heavily and appellant went to the slymes dam on two occasions without any problem. On the third occasion the car stopped in the midst of stagnant water caused by heavy rains. Appellant was charged by respondent on allegations of gross incompetence and he was dismissed at the initial hearing and the appeals committee upheld the verdict.” More
This appeal was filed by appellant on 19 September 2014 and respondent was invited to file a response but did not do so. Since then nothing has happened on the matter making it eligible to be decided under section 89 (2) (a) 1 of the Labour Act. The issue between the parties was about factual arguments on the respondents underpayments and entitlements. Arbitrator ruled that the respondent had a good case. More
At the hearing of this matter, a point in limine was taken that the Appellant was improperly before the Court in that it was approaching the Court with dirty hands.
It was submitted that in terms of law, the noting of an appeal does not suspend the decision appealed against. More
This is an appeal against the decision of an arbitrator sitting at Harare. The Learned Arbitrator after assessing the facts placed before him dismissed the appellant’s claim for lack of merit. The sole ground on which this appeal is based is that:
“The honourable Arbitrator erred in differentiating similar cases and disregards the precedence (sic) set by the Labour Court which is superior than the Arbitrator”
In this case the appellant asserted that the Arbitrator failed to follow precedent. The Arbitrator on the other hand considered the specific facts of this matter. Thereafter they made a determination in terms of... More
Respondent was in the employ of the appellant. The employment relationship was terminated by retrenchment. The appellant decided to pay overtime wages due to respondent from the year 2009 to 2012. Appellant declined to pay overtime wages for the period 2005 to 2008. This resulted in the matter being referred to arbitration. More
