This is an appeal against an arbitral award handed down on the 9th February 2012.
The factual background is as follows;
The appellant was employed as a Technician by Siemens (Pvt) Ltd a company whose telecommunications business was purchased by Paragon Communications (Pvt) Ltd on the 1st February, 2007. The appellant was consequently transferred to Paragon Communications on the same terms and conditions as under the previous contract. The appellant referred a complaint to the Labour Office of an unfair labour practice arising out of the fact that, contrary to the express terms of his contract of employment, the respondent... More
The matter has been set down in terms of rule22 of the Labour Court rules. The Respondent is alleged to have failed to file a notice of response. However during questioning of the Respondent it became clear the Respondent was never served with a notice to file a response. Respondent was only served with the notice of appeal papers. The dies induciae has not started to run even to date. However on 30 January 2013 Respondent filed a notice of response and heads of argument. The papers were served on the Appellant on the same date. From the above Respondent... More
This is an appeal against an arbitral award issued on 28 October 2010 in the following terms;
“That the claimant be paid damages of 3 years using the salary rate obtaining when he was unfairly dismissed.”
The appellant was employed by the respondent as a Senior Designated Agent until June 2007 when he was dismissed. More
This is an appeal against an arbitral award. Respondent is an employee of the appellant. He is currently employed as an assistant accountant having been initially engaged as a creditors clerk in July 1997. More
This matter was initially set down on the Supreme Court roll as an appeal matter. At the hearing of the appeal, the respondent submitted that the matter raised a constitutional issue of whether the law of parate executie violates the access to the courts provision, s 69(3) of the current Constitution of Zimbabwe (“the Constitution”). Mr Matinenga applied for a referral to the Constitutional Court for the determination of that issue. More
Appellant was employed by Respondent as the Head of Client Services. She was employed with effect from 3rd January 2012 until 13th December 2013 when she was served with a letter of instant dismissal. Following a challenge to that initial dismissal through her lawyers’ correspondence, Respondent withdrew the dismissal by a letter of the 20th December 2013. She was invited back to work effective from 6th January 2014. Upon her return she was served with a letter of suspension and was charged of the misconduct of “any act of conduct or omission inconsistent with the fulfillment of the employee’s contract... More
Appellant’s grounds of appeal complained that,
“1. The National Employment Council Negotiating Committee erred in failing to appreciate that the Respondent’s disciplinary process was flawed as it negated and breached the principles of natural justice by inter alia; …
2. Even assuming but not admitting that the disciplinary process was properly conducted the NEC’s Negotiating Committee (“NEC”) erred and seriously misdirected itself when it failed to address and concede the fact that Appellant had been reinstated on 17 May 2012 and accordingly was entitled to his back pay.
3. Appellant was not allowed to address in mitigation before the decision... More
