The background facts which are common cause are as follows;
The Appellant was employed by the Respondent as its Distribution Supervisor. He was given leave of absence to attend a training session from the 18th to the 21st of January, 2011. On the 21st of January of 2011 the training ended earlier around 1100hours. After training the Appellant went to his department and advised his subordinates to plan for the weekend programme. During his absence his subordinates stole 608 cases of Mazoe Orange Crush valued at US$9 093, 89. The Appellant was suspended from employment. More
This matter was set down as an appeal against the arbitrator’s decision where he ruled on the point in limineraised in the arbitral proceedings that the employees had pursued multiple legal proceedings hence the claim they had brought before the arbitrator could not be entertained by the arbitrator. More
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
