The Appellant was employed by the Respondent as an Engineering Manager. He was charged with three counts of habitual and substantial neglect of duties. Following a full disciplinary hearing the disciplinary hearing official found him guilty and subsequently dismissed him from employment. More
This is an application where partiesconsented to have the matter struck off the roll. This is being asked because the record is not properly done. The record which is before the court is paginated differently from the record which the appellant has. This makes the hearing very cumbersome as some documents also appear to be missing or mixed up. This means that the matter cannot be heard in view of the status of the record of proceedings.However the respondent has asked for costs on the higher scale which application the appellant opposes. More
On the 15th April 2021 Harare Applicant, as a Labour Officer, issued a ruling. She ordered 1st Respondent (employer) to reinstate 2nd Respondent (employee) or pay her damages in lieu of reinstatement. Apparently the employer did not comply. Applicant then applied to this Court in terms of section 93(5a) of the Labour Act Chapter 28:01 for the confirmation of her ruling.The employee supported the application whilst the employer opposed it. More
This is an appeal against the respondent’s decision in which it dismissed the appellant from its employ. The appellant was dismissed for:
“Theft or failure to take reasonable care or making improper or unauthorised use of state property or the property of any statutory body, statutory fund or local authority including motor vehicles or the failure to take adequate steps to ensure that reasonable care is taken of any such property or failure to report at the earliest opportunity any loss thereof or damage thereto.” More
The facts of this matter are largely common cause. They are as follows:
All the eight appellants are former employees of the respondent. They were dismissed following disciplinary proceedings. The facts pertaining to the charges and evidence are similar hence their respective appeals have been consolidated into one record. Indeed, the respective heads of argument from both sides are the same with respect to each and every one of them. Each one of the appellants was charged with a violation of provisions of the Collective Bargaining Agreement: Mining Industry (Code of Conduct) Statutory Instrument 165/1992. More
