Appellant appealed to this Court against his dismissal from employment by Respondent. On the date of hearing of the appeal Respondent defaulted. However its case is set out in their Response filed of record. Ordinarily I would have granted the appeal by reason of Respondent’s default. However the record shows that the appeal is devoid of merit.Why?
Appellant worked for Respondent as a Bus Inspector. He was charged with misconduct. A hearing was held. The minutes thereof are filed of record. More
In this appeal the appellants were aggrieved by the determination of an arbitrator. The Labour Act Chapter 28:01 stipulates that only issues of law may be brought on appeal against a determination of an arbitrator. In this matter the arbitrator made a factual finding that the appellants were fairly dismissed after committing the alleged offences. The grounds of appeal raise issues of a factual nature. These grounds are therefore not properly before the Court. Further, there is no averrement that the Learned Arbitrator misdirected himself on the facts and that such misdirection amounted to a misdirection at law. In the... More
This is an appeal against part of the decision of the respondents disciplinary authority which found appellant teacher guilty of act of misconduct of being absent from duty without excuse and for refusing to invigilate public examinations that were taking place at his school. Appellant was penalised by a fine of ZWL $45 000, transfer from Highfield School to Simbaredenga School and a reprimand. Appellant is unhappy with the guilty verdict emanating from his alleged refusal to invigilate Public examinations. He is also of the view that the penalties meted on him were harsh. More
In a judgment dated 2 November 2018, this court set aside Arbitrator Bvumbe’s arbitral award. Applicants are dissatisfied with that decision and intend to approach the Supreme Court on appeal. This is therefore an application for leave to appeal in terms of s 92 F of the Labour Act, [Chapter 28:01]. More
The brief factual background is that the applicant on 6 November, 2013 appeared before a disciplinary committee to answer a charge of failure to follow a lawful instruction issued by his supervisor. He was found guilty and a penalty of dismissal was consequently imposed. On 26 November, 2013 he appealed under the provisions of the relevant code of conduct to the Managing Director. The Managing Director in his determination upheld the decision of the Disciplinary Committee. The next level of appeal under the code was the NEC Appeals Committee. On 21 January 2013 the applicant noted an appeal to that... More
