Respondent was employed as a Distribution Representative by Appellant. He was charged with various counts of misconduct as provided for in the employer’s Code of Conduct. He pleaded guilty to the charges. The Disciplinary Committee recommended his dismissal. Respondent appealed to the Works Council. The Works Council dismissed Respondent’s appeal and he took the matter up with the National Employment Council (NEC) which constituted the Grievance and Disciplinary Committee (GDC) which body set aside the decision to dismiss him and substituted it with a Final Written Warning valid for twelve months. More
This matter is an application for rescission of an order granted in default by this court.
Applicant filed two appeals before this court, namely:
(i) Interfresh Limited v Mukudza and Others LC/H/904/12 and
(ii) Broadbridge Investments (Pvt) Ltd v Mukudza and Others LC/H/577/12.
The two appeals were dismissed on the 15th August 2013 following an application made by respondent in terms of Rule 19 (3) (a) of the Labour Court Rules, 2006, in that applicant had not filed its heads of argument within fourteen days of receipt of respondent’s notices of response in respect of both appeals but about eleven... More
The delay in the delivery of this judgment is regretted. It was due to the parties’ failure and delay in responding to issues raised. Consequently the judgment had to be written without a response from one of the parties on the issue of appealing on a conviction that is not on record. More
The matter before me is an application for review under case number LC/H/ 44/25, conjoined with an appeal under case number LC/H/25/25. The two matters were initially filed separately on the IECMS platform, however, they were ultimately consolidated due to their derivation from the same factual circumstances and decision. At the outset of the proceedings, the Court informed the parties that it would first consider the application for review, followed by the appeal. More
On the 13th December 2022 at Harare, the Exemptions Committee (EC) of the NEC Rural District Councils issued a determination. It ordered appellant (employer) to reinstate respondent (employee) or pay her damages in lieu of reinstatement. The employer then appealed the determination to this Court in terms of section 92 D of the Labour Act Chapter 28:01 hereafter called the “Act”. The employee opposed the appeal. More
