The 1st respondent is a former employee of the appellant. He was employed as a Purchase Officer. Following an audit the appellant discovered that 1st respondent hand caused losses to the company in the amount of US$314 through favouring one client, Champions, a supplier of motor spares. Initially appellant had referred the matter to the police and then acing on advice opted to
conduct disciplinary process. The 1st respondent thereafter started absconding from work from the 14th of August, 2021. The appellant then levelled charges against 1st respondent of absenteeism; (1 count) unsatisfactory work performance (4 counts). A disciplinary hearing... More
To that end this is a consolidated matter in respect of LC/H/350/13, LC/H/380, LC/H/384/14 and LC/H/259/15.
Parties agreed on the issues for determination by this court which were set out as follows:
Whether or not
i) Arbitrator Dangarembizi erred in finding the respondent not guilty of acts inconsistent with the terms and conditions of his contract of employment;
ii) Arbitrator Dangarembizi erred in finding the respondent guilty of wilful disobedience of a lawful order;
iii) Arbitrator Dangarembizi erred in interfering with the penalty of dismissal and in ordering the respondent’s reinstatement;
iv) Arbitrator Dangarembizi erred in awarding the employee back-pay... More
The matter was placed before me as an appeal against an arbitral award handed down on the 13th of October 2011. The Respondent was employed by the Appellant as the Sports Director. He was suspended from duty on 21st June 2011 on allegations of misconduct. More
By order date stamped 22nd February 2018 the Supreme Court of Zimbabwe remitted the matter to this Court for it:
“(a) To determine the actual period during which the appellant was employed by the respondent and in respect of which the respondent was contractually obliged to remit pension contributions to the relevant Pension Fund.
(b) To compute the exact amount of the contributions payable in respect of both employer’s and employee’s contributions, less the amounts already paid by the
respondents for the period of actual employment determined in terms of paragraph (a) above.” More
The grounds of appeal which form the basis of this appeal are that:-
“1. The Arbitrator erred in finding that he had jurisdiction to entertain the dispute when the jurisdiction of a labour arbitrator is confined to disputes involving employees.
2. The Arbitrator grossly misdirected himself on the facts, which misdirection amounts to an error of law, in finding that the Respondent is entitled to cash in lieu of leave, outstanding commissions from 2011 and COPAC commissions.”
The brief background to this matter is that Respondent was in Appellant’s employ as a Sales Manager as from 2007. On the 30th... More
