The record shows two actions that the appellant took, following the decision of the respondent’s Disciplinary Authority to dismiss her from employment. The Disciplinary Authority found the appellant guilty of misconduct in terms of the Labour (National Employment Code of Conduct) Regulations, S I 15 of 2006. More
The appellant was employed by the respondent as a senior teller. Following suspicions that she disclosed confidential information to certain individuals. She was charged. She was charged with two acts of misconduct disclosing confidential information obtained in the course of one’s duties and violating safety rules or measures with serious consequences. The designated officer found her liable after considering the evidence and dismissed the appellant. Appellant appealed to the Mashonaland Local Joint Committee which upheld the decision of the Designated Officer. Dissatisfied by the decision appellant approached the Negotiating Committee on appeal. The Negotiating Committee upheld the dismissal of the... More
This is an appeal against the decision of the National employment Council for the Engineering and Iron and Steel Industry where it ordered that the Respondent employee be reinstated by the Appellant employee without any loss of salary or benefits from the date of his suspension or alternatively that he be paid damages in place of the reinstatement. More
This is an appeal against the decision of the respondent employer’s disciplinary authority which found appellant guilty of misconduct at work and dismissed him from employment. More
At the commencement of the proceedings the court invited Mr Bhebhe, appearing for the respondent, to address it on why the Notice of Response was not filed timeously in compliance with the Labour Court Rules. Mr Bhebhe submitted that the respondent advised that it had not had sight of the Form LC2 as the person who had received the document had not retained a copy. Mr Bhebhe further submitted that the respondent was only jolted into action when Heads of Argument were served on it on 7 May 2014. It was argued on behalf of the respondent that though this... More
