The appellant was employed by the respondent as a hydraulics and pneumatics technician. He resigned from employment on 8 December 2010 after giving three months’ notice. Upon termination of the contract of employment the parties agreed that, the amount due to the appellant was $2 727-87 being outstanding salaries and terminal benefits. The appellant wanted the whole amount to be paid at once while the respondent offered to pay in instalments of $350-00 per month starting March 2011 and ending December 2011. The parties failed to agree on the period of payment and the matter was referred to conciliation. No... More
This is an appeal against the decision of the National Employment Council Industry Grievance and Disciplinary Committee 9”NEC Disciplinary Committee”) handed down on 7 February 2014. In its findings the Disciplinary Committee found that the appellant failed to prove a prima facie case against the Respondent. More
Respondent was employed as a Distribution Representative by Appellant. He was charged with various counts of misconduct as provided for in the employer’s Code of Conduct. He pleaded guilty to the charges. The Disciplinary Committee recommended his dismissal. Respondent appealed to the Works Council. The Works Council dismissed Respondent’s appeal and he took the matter up with the National Employment Council (NEC) which constituted the Grievance and Disciplinary Committee (GDC) which body set aside the decision to dismiss him and substituted it with a Final Written Warning valid for twelve months. More
This matter is an application for rescission of an order granted in default by this court.
Applicant filed two appeals before this court, namely:
(i) Interfresh Limited v Mukudza and Others LC/H/904/12 and
(ii) Broadbridge Investments (Pvt) Ltd v Mukudza and Others LC/H/577/12.
The two appeals were dismissed on the 15th August 2013 following an application made by respondent in terms of Rule 19 (3) (a) of the Labour Court Rules, 2006, in that applicant had not filed its heads of argument within fourteen days of receipt of respondent’s notices of response in respect of both appeals but about eleven... More
Respondent was employed by appellant as a tool-setter. He is alleged to have influenced other employees to proceed on a “go slow”. A machine broke down and it was attributed to respondent’s actions. He was brought before a Disciplinary Committee which recommended his dismissal. An appeal to the Works Council met with a similar fate. Respondent further appealed to the industry’s General Engineering Code of Conduct Appeals Sub Committee (hereinafter the GEC) which found in his favour and ordered his reinstatement. More
