The relevant statutes and instruments in this matter are as follows,
1. The Labour Act Chapter 28:01 hereafter called the Act.
2. The ChinhoyiUnivesity of Technology Act Chapter 25:03 hereafter called the CUT Act.
3. The Labour (National Employment Code of Conduct) Regulations S.I. 15/06 hereafter called the National Code.
Applicant filed an application for review by this Court of her dismissal from employment by Respondent. The grounds for review were two-fold namely illegality and irrationality. I shall deal with the grounds adseriatim. More
Appellant was employed by the respondent as a driver/salesman. Following allegations of misconduct, appellant was brought before the Disciplinary Committee which found him guilty. A subsequent appeal to the Works Council confirmed the decision of the Disciplinary Committee. More
This is an appeal from a decision of the Chief Executive Officer of Respondent dismissing Appellant from employment. Appellant was dismissed after having been found guilty of gross incompetence and neglect of duty in violation of item 3 section C to Annexure 11 of Respondent’s Code of Conduct More
The appellant was employed by the respondent as a supervisor. The parties mutually terminated the employment contract on 4 November 2014.
The agreement was reduced into writing and appellant was paid his terminal benefits in terms of the deed of settlement.
In August 2015 the appellant referred a complaint to a labour officer against respondent for non-payment of overtime.
When conciliation efforts failed the matter was referred to an arbitrator. The arbitrator dismissed the claim predominantly on the basis that appellant failed to prove his claim. More
This matter was set down as an application for confirmation of a ruling by a labour officer in terms of Section 93 (5) Labour Amendment Act. On the hearing date the employer raised a point in limine to the effect that the matter was improperly before the court. This was so taking into account two recent decisions of Sakarombe v Montana Meats SC-4-10 and Isoquant Investment v Darku No CCZ 6/20. The employer’s argument was that the labour officer sat on the matter as if it were an appellate body contrary to the spirit of Montana Meats (supra). It also... More
