The applicants have had a long running legal battle with the 4th respondent (Air Zimbabwe Holdings) and Air Zimbabwe (Pvt) Ltd, a subsidiary company of Air Zimbabwe Holdings. The legal dispute between the parties has its genesis steeped in matters of employment. It is claimed that Air Zimbabwe Holdings and Air Zimbabwe (Pvt) Ltd owe the applicants and their members (who are employees of the former) approximately US$35 415 731,80 representing union dues and salary arrears for the period January, 2009 to December 2011. The applicants believe that the financial woes bedevilling Air Zimbabwe Holdings and Air Zimbabwe (Pvt) Ltd... More
On the last day of hearing of this application, I delivered an interim order pending the determination of the present application to the effect that:
“That pending the handing down of the judgment under this urgent chamber application, the 1st and 3rd Respondents are hereby directed to stay execution of judgment under HC 5790/22 against the applicant.” More
The brief facts of this matter are that:
(1) The respondent was employed by the appellant as a bakery checker
(2) On 11 July 2011 he was suspended from employment without pay and benefits.
(3) On 15 July 2011 the respondent was phoned by a workmate to report at work on that day. He appeared for a hearing that day and he was dismissed from work.
(4) On the 29 of July 2011 the respondent received a formal notification of the hearing. He was being charged for gross incompetence in performance of duties and habitual substantial neglect of duty.
(5)... More
The application is for a declaratory order to declare that an arbitral award handed down by the arbitrator, the first respondent, on 9 November, 2012, is incompetent, void and therefore unenforceable. More
This is an application for reinstatement.
Applicant filed an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court on 23 June 2023. The Applicant failed/neglected to file heads of argument in that case which was LC/H/488/23. The matter was deemed abandoned by the Registrar on 9 August 2023 in terms Rule 46 (b). Applicant subsequently filed an application for reinstatement on 12 September 2023 in Case Number LC/H/694/23. The matter was heard on 12 March 2024 with the result that the matter was struck off the roll because of defective documents filed with that application. More
In a Notice issued on 9 August 2023, Applicant’s application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court was deemed abandoned by the Registrar in terms of Rule 46 (b) of the Labour Court Rules, 2017. This is therefore an application for reinstatement of the application. More
The respondent is a former employee of the applicant. His contract of employment was terminated. The papers filed in this matter show that the Labour Court dismissed his appeal and upheld the termination of the contract of employment. The respondent according to the papers in this matter, has instituted proceedings for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Labour Court. More
This is a consolidated matter, an appeal against an arbitral award and a review of the same award. The two matters were filed separately under case numbers LC/H/496/11 and LC/H/489/11. An application for the consolidation of both matters was made. This Court granted the application.
The background to this case is as follows:
The Respondent was employed by Appellant as Information and Documentation Officer on a contract for a period of three (3) years from July 2002. The contract was to expire on 12 July 2005. On the 29th of July 2005 Appellant wrote to Respondent advising him that the... More
This is an application for stay of execution. The Registrar of Labour handed down a determination on the 7th of September 2015 which found that there was an overlap in the scope of coverage between the applicant and the first respondent. She went on to diminish the applicant’s scope of coverage by excluding toilet preparations, detergents, soaps, candles, waxes and polishes. It was directed that all companies which manufactured the aforementioned shall fall under the first respondent’s industry and that administrative arrangements be put in place to secure employee benefits. More
This is an application in terms of Section 46 (a) of the Labour Act, [Chapter 28:01], wherein it is sought that the Court determines under which employment council the business operations of the first respondent fall.
The Applicant is an Employment Council registered in terms of the Labour Act. It is responsible for regulating the Catering Industry in terms of the Collective Bargaining Agreement: Catering Industry (General Conditions) Statutory Instrument 167 of 1991. More
What remains standing out as the only defence which the respondent is clutching to, as if life itself depends on it, in resisting this application for summary judgement in the sum of $31 238-00 in statutory dues, is that the applicant should have supplied the further particulars it requested on 27 October 2015 to particularise how the sum claimed is arrived at and the basis for claiming interest from January 2014. That interesting state of affairs was achieved after Mr Chiwara for the respondent and myself had exchanged notes as a result of which he promptly abandoned the other three... More
The plaintiff issued summons against the defendant, claiming payment of $106 665.24 comprised of outstanding council levies, pension fund dues and trade union contributions due on a collective bargaining agreement for the catering industry.The defendant raised a special plea that all claims prior to 1 September 2012 had prescribed. For the unprescribed amount, the defendant had no obligation to meet the same as it was unconstitutional to force it to belong to any employer’s organisation contrary to its right of freedom of association, and further and in any case, the statutes relied on by plaintiff to ground its claim were... More
The facts and legal background of the matter are common cause: at all material times the defendant was a member of the pension fund for the National Employment Council (NEC) for the Catering Industry as required by s 8 of the Industrial Agreement: Catering Industry, S.I. 359 of 1980. On 10 March 2016 defendant notified plaintiff in writing of its intention to cease its membership with the plaintiff’s pension fund and to stop all contributions by 1 April 2016.
Plaintiff advised defendant that it could not resign membership but ought to seek exemption. Defendant was subsequently denied such exemption. On... More
