Respondents were employed by Appellant as engineers and managerial employees. In April 2012, the Respondents were served with transfer letters which they challenged resulting in an award being made by Arbitrator Shawatu on 9th May 2012 which was to the effect that:
“- the Respondent (Appellant) is hereby ordered to consult the claimants first concerning their wishes, concerns and personal circumstances, regarding the transfers before a discretion to transfer is made.
- The Respondent is further ordered that the decision to transfer the claimants
they had made is invalid and therefore without force or effect for the decision was made... More
On 27th August 2015 at Harare, the appellant’s Disciplinary Committee acquitted respondent of misconduct after a disciplinary hearing. The appellant then appealed to this court against the verdict. The respondent opposed the appeal. The appellant’s case was that the committee grossly erred in assessing the evidence and thus came to a wrong conclusion/verdict. More
This is an appeal against a decision by a Disciplinary Authority (DA) appointed by the appellant. (In this judgment the terms DA and Tribunal/Lower Tribunal will be used interchangeably). The respondent is an employee of the appellant. Misconduct charges were preferred against him. Disciplinary proceedings were conducted against him by the DA. At the conclusion of the proceedings the DA acquitted the respondent. The appellant was aggrieved by that outcome and has noted an appeal against that decision. More
The brief history of this case is that Respondent was employed on a three (3) month contract as a Loss Control Assistant. The contract was renewed many times. The Respondent is denying that he signed the last written contract which was going to expire on the 31st December 2011. He is alleging that he worked under a contract which did not state the date of expiry. Respondent has therefore submitted that he was unduly terminated. Conciliation proceedings could not produce a settlement and the matter was referred for arbitration before Honourable Arbitrator Chimhuka. More
This matter was set down on appeal at the instance of the appellant in a decision which was made in favour of the respondent employee. On the hearing date the respondent argued that the appeal was bad at law as it did not set out points of law as envisaged by section 98 (1c) of the Labour Act. It is only that preliminary point which is addressed by this judgment. More
