The brief facts of the case are that the respondent who was on “fixed term contract of employment with the appellant approached the GDC after he had failed to recover value for the days which he says he had accrued at the respondent’s. Based on the evidence presented before it both oral and written the GDC ruled that indeed the employee had made out a good case for payment for the days he had accrued when he was still in the appellant’s employment. To that end the GDC ordered the appellant to pay the respondent for those days More
This is an appeal against an arbitral award.
The first and second respondents are former employees of the appellant. They were employed in the capacities of shift manager and factory manager respectively on fixed term contracts. Such contracts were for a two year period. The last contracts ran from the 1st of April 2012 to the 31st of March 2014. More
The brief background of the matter is that the appellant is employed by the respondent. He was employed at the Mazowe Catchment as Loss Control Officer from 16 October 2006 to August 2011. It has been submitted that his duties involved safeguarding and protecting ZINWA resources from damages, theft and any other potential losses and hazards. It is alleged that in April 2011 during the Easter Holiday the appellant went to Goromonzi Water Supply Station and took away some pipes belonging to ZINWA without authority from his superiors. By then he was on study leave. It has also been submitted... More
The appellant was employed by the respondent as a teacher and stationed at Hanwa Primary School in Mashonaland East Province. He was charged on allegations of contravening paragraphs 1, 2 and 24 of the first schedule (section 2) of the Public Service Regulations (S I 1 of 2000). The grounds upon which the allegations were based were that he absented himself from duty without good cause or permission from 9 January 2010 to 1 March 2010, a total of forty eight days. More
The Appellant was employed by the Respondent as a revenue specialist based at Harare Port. Following a discovery that she had received gifts from Respondent’s clients she was charged in terms of Respondent’s Code of Conduct. Appellant was charged with a charge D17 alternatively D25 of the said Code of Conduct. The disciplinary committee found the Appellant not liable for the charge under D17 but found her liable under D25 of the Code. Appellant appealed to the Appeals Committee. The appeal was unsuccessful. She then noted an appeal against the appeals committee’s decision to this Court. More
