The respondent was employed by the appellant as a Traffic Enforcement Supervisor until August 2015 when he was dismissed from employment following a disciplinary hearing.
The background to this case is not disputed. Following allegations of misconduct the respondent was charged and invited for a hearing on 13 December 2013. More
This is an appeal against an arbitral award of 27 May 2013 in which the Appellant was ordered to pay the Respondents acting allowances and appoint them to the substantive position of Finance Manager Grade 4. More
This is an appeal against the decision of the arbitrator who ruled that the appellant employer was committing an unfair labour practice by making respondent employees act in grades higher than their real grades but not pay them an acting allowance or at least elevate them to the said higher grades. More
In August 2009 Respondent was employed by the Appellant as a Dental Therapist. In 2011 she applied for study leave to pursue a degree in Dental Surgery at the University of Zimbabwe. More
The Appellant was the Respondent’s employer. On 5 April, 2006, the Appellant dismissed the Respondent from employment following a disciplinary hearing for absence from duty without reasonable cause. The Appellant says the Respondent did not appeal against the decision; he left employment as a result of the dismissal and resurfaced in February, 2011 when he referred his case to the designated agent for the Employment Council for the Harare Municipal undertaking on 4 February, 2011, alleging unfair labour practice. More
There has been an undue delay in the handing down of this judgement. This was due to circumstances beyond the Judge’s control as the Judge fell ill and created a backlog. The court extends its most sincere apologies to the parties for the delay. The following is the judgement in the matter. More
This is an appeal against the decision of Honourable Arbitrator M.C. Kare that was handed down on 20 June 2014. In the award Honourable Kare found that Appellant had committed an unfair Labour practice by intentionally failing to make substantive appointments of the Respondents in writing to the grade of 13/14 as required by law. The Appellant was then ordered to substantively appoint the Respondents to grade 13/14 from August 2012 and pay then correct salaries. More
On 22nd November 2012 the Honourable G Nasho Wilson made an arbitration award. In terms thereof he ordered Appellant to reinstate Respondent in its employ or pay him damages in lieu of reinstatement. Appellant then appealed to this Court against the award. Respondent opposed the appeal. More
This is an application for stay of execution of an arbitral award granted on 4 November 2013. The award ordered reinstatement of the respondent to his employment with the applicant, and reinstitution of disciplinary proceedings. More
This is an application for condonation for late filing of an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. An application for leave to appeal is done in terms of Rule 43 of the Labour Court Rules Statutory Instrument 150 of 2017. The respondent took a point in limine to the effect that the application was improperly before the court as the applicant had not filed a copy of the intended application for leave to appeal. By failing to file the said copy the applicant was said to have denied the court the opportunity to consider the prospects of... More
At the beginning of the hearing, Mr Chikowero applied for a postponement citing the fact that he had received the documents from the Applicant on 5 March 2014 when in fact these had been served on Applicant on 7 February 2014. It was common case that 1st Respondent had erroneously served the Notice of Response on the Applicant instead of the Applicant’s legal practitioners. More
This is an application in terms of Section 92 E (3) of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01] for stay of execution of an arbitral award in favour of the Respondent More
This is an application for stay of execution. It emanates from an arbitral award dated the 3rd of June 2013, in which it was ruled that a collective job action in which Respondent participated was lawful, and as a consequence of which Applicant was ordered to reinstate Respondent without loss of salary or benefits. More
