This matter arose from the change of ownership from BP and Shell Private Limited to the Appellant as a going concern with a clause inserted in the agreement guaranteeing the conditions of service of the employees. It is alleged the said clause was violated by the Appellant. After initial attempts to resolve the matter failed, it was referred to compulsory arbitration. More
On the 8th of January, 2014, through his erstwhile legal practitioner, Appellant filed an appeal with this Court. The grounds of appeal can be gleaned from pages 5 – 7 of the record. These are that:-
1. Respondent misdirected itself of a point of law and on the facts in finding that Appellant was guilty of misconduct and that he was lawfully dismissed as
1.1. Appellant was not given sufficient particulars of the charges.
1.2. The Disciplinary Committee violated the Interfresh Limited Code of Conduct as well as the rules of natural justice in that he was not afforded an... More
This is an appeal against a decision made by the Minister of Labour and Social Services who had been cited as the 2nd respondent in these proceedings. More
This is an appeal against the order of a “Committee” of employer representative and the Human Resources Manager.
The brief history of this matter is that Appellant was employed as a Depot Manager. He was charged with four counts of misconduct that is
- Fraud, forgery, corruption, falsification.
- Theft.
- Failure to disclose any interests in a company conducting business with GMB in which one has an interest or influence.
- Any act of misconduct or omission inconsistent with the fulfillment of the express or implied conditions of one’s contract of employment. More
This is an application for stay of execution of an arbitral award issued on 12 January 2011. The application was filed on 28 October 2013, the same day the notice of appeal was filed. The applicant contends that the respondents are desirous of enforcing the award by the Honourable Dangarembizi in terms of the quantification award dated 26 March 2012. The applicant further contends that it will suffer irreparable prejudice if the respondents are allowed to execute on the award. More
