Appellant was dismissed from Respondent’s employment for flouting provisions of the Respondent’s Code of Conduct.
The disciplinary proceedings that led to the dismissal were conducted in terms of Varichem Laboratories (Pvt) Ltd. Code of Conduct (THE CODE) which was duly registered by the then Ministry of Public Service, Labour and Social Welfare on the 17th June 1994. More
Appellant grounds of appeal are two-fold. They read as follows,
“1. The arbitrator erred grossly on the facts and at law by finding that the Appellant had the onus of proving on which date Respondent was served with the appeal hearing decision.
2. The arbitrator erred grossly on the facts and at law by making an uncorroborated allegation that an employee always has an interest to protect his employer’s case and finding that whatever the employee then says as a witness is false.” More
The appellant was a school Head. Two posts fell vacant at his school. The posts were advertised. After the requisite procedures had been followed, two people were interviewed. The appellant as Head of the school was part of the panel of interviewers. The other party was his Acting Deputy. The third person was a member of the parent body – School Development Association (SDA). The two candidates were Tendayi Nyahuye, who is also the appellant’ daughter and Susan T. Manquma who is the daughter of the Acting Deputy Head. More
At the hearing of this matter a preliminary issue was raised that the Appellant’s legal practitioners had failed to file Heads of Arguments timeously in terms of Rule 19 of the Labour Court Rules.
The Appellant argued that the operation of the bar is not automatic. It was submitted in this regard that
“The Appellant argues firstly that there is no provision in the Labour Court rules which is to the effect that a party who has not filed its Heads of Argument timeously is barred from being heard on the merits”. More
