The judgment in this matter was meant to have been handed down latest by the first term of 2013. However when the court sat down to consider the papers filed of record and the oral submissions by the parties on 29 November 2012 it became apparent that there was need to recall the lawyers representing both parties to shed light on the issues which exercised the mind of the court when it was preparing for the judgment. Consequently the court invited the said lawyers on the 21 March 2013. More
This is an appeal against the arbitrator’s award in which it was held that the Appellant council had committed an unfair labour practice against the Respondents and was thus ordered to correct the same.
The facts of the case are that in 2007 the Appellant came up with a new organogram meant to change the grading and designations of its employees. Same was approved by a resolution of the full Council and was partially implement by the re-designation of some of its employees.
The Respondents who were in Appellant’s employ as patrol persons were meant to be branded sergeants in... More
Respondent was employed by the Appellant in the Waste Management Department. It is alleged that Respondent absented herself from duty and she was brought before a Disciplinary Committee which sanctioned her dismissal. Respondent approached the Employment Council in 2011 on appeal but this was not resolved. The matter was referred to arbitration and the Arbitrator found in favour of Respondent. Appellant is dissatisfied with the decision of the Arbitrator and has appealed to this Court. More
This is an appeal against an Arbitral Award wherein it was ordered that Respondent be reinstated to his original position as the decision to dismiss him was null and void as it was made outside the prescribed time frames. More
This an appeal against the decision of Honourable Arbitrator Mudiwa dated 17th June 2019 which was couched as follows;
“Wherefore after carefully analysing the relevant facts and law, I make the following awards,
(i) The Disciplinary Committee was properly constituted.
(ii) The charges against the claimant were preferred outside the prescribed time.
(iii) The department representative did not act improperly when he led evidence at the hearing which evidence had the effect of pre-emptying the matter or causing bias. The dismissal of the claimant was not fair in the circumstances.
(iv) The respondent is hereby ordered to reinstate the claimant.... More
