This is an appeal against an award by an arbitrator sitting at Harare. The facts of the matter are largely common cause. These are they. The respondent was employed by the appellant. Disciplinary proceedings were conducted against him. He was found guilty. He was penalised with dismissal. He appealed internally in terms of the obtaining appeal process. Appellant, for whatever reason, never sat to determine the appeal. This was so despite reminders from the respondent. A situation where an employer decides to ignore the plight of a dismissed employee in asserting his rights is unacceptable. Section 2A(1) of the Labour... More
At the hearing of an appeal in this matter, respondent made an oral application for a postponement of this matter to enable the filing of heads of argument, which are outstanding. More
This is an appeal against an arbitral award.
The respondent raised a grievance against the appellant, their employer. They argued that they had been wrongly placed in grade 11 instead of in grade 10.
The issue was referred for arbitration and the arbitrator captures the terms of reference as
“To determine whether or not the complainants were wrongly (graded) placed in grade 11 instead of grade 10 upon their deployment to driving duties.”
The arbitrator found that the respondents had been placed in a wrong grade and each of the respondents was to be placed in the right grade i.e.... More
This is an application for condonation of late application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court combined with an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.
On 25 October 2013 this Court granted an application for the granting of the appeal in terms of Rule 19 (3) (a) of S.I. 59/06 as respondent in that matter (now applicant) had not filed heads of argument as required by the same rules. In terms of Rule 36 of S.I. 59/06, a party desiring to seek leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against any decision of this court must... More
The respondent is employed by the appellant as a general worker. Respondent raised grievances that she should have been promoted to a public convenience cleaner, that she had not been paid acting allowances when she acted as a public convenience cleaner and that she was entitled to a noxious substance allowance. More
