The Court is proceeding in terms of Section 89 (2)(a)(i) of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01] THE ACT which reads:
“In the exercise of its functions, the Labour Court may –
(a) On the case of an appeal –
(i) Conduct a hearing into the matter or decide it on the record; or
(ii) …………………………………” More
Applicant was employed by respondent on successive one month contracts for the period 9 November 2009 to 12/10. On 4 January applicant entered into an employment contract with Lorimark (Pvt) Ltd and the contract was terminated on 4 February 2011 on allegations of misconduct. Applicant alleged unfair dismissal and referred the matter for resolution. Honourable Arbitrator Matsikidze ruled that respondent was applicant’s employer, not Lorimark (Pvt) Ltd. The issue of unfair dismissal was dealt with by Honourable Arbitrator Mutsinze who ruled that at the time of the termination of contract in February 2011. Applicant’s contract was without limit of time... More
Before the matter was heard on the merits the respondent raised two preliminary points. The first preliminary point being that the appellant was improperly before the court since he did not exhaust local remedies provided for in the respondent’s Code of Conduct. The second issue being that some of the grounds of appeal are grounds for review and should be struck off. On that basis Counsel for the respondent urged the court to dismiss the appeal. The application for dismissal on the preliminary points was opposed. Counsel for the respondent’s basis of opposing the first preliminary point was that the... More
Respondent was employed by appellant for five years as an Accountant. She went on maternity leave in January 2013. During the period she was on maternity leave her salary was reduced from $700 to $450. On 6 June 2013 her employment was terminated. Aggrieved, she approached the Ministry of Labour complaining of unfair labour practice in that she was discriminated in the reduction of her salary and was not given notice prior to the termination of her employment. The matter was not settled at conciliation and was subsequently referred to arbitration. More
The parties in this case were engaged in a dispute of salaries. The parties failed to agree on the determination of a new minimum wage for the Industry for the period 1 January 2011 to 30 June 2011. They also failed to agree on a housing allowance for the period 1 January 2011 to 30 June 2011. More
