This is an appeal against the decision of an arbitrator sitting at Harare. The sixteen respondents are former employees of the appellant. They were retrenched by the appellant after being placed on some form of leave “garden leave” which placed them “on call” – i.e. they did not go to work but had to be prepared to go to work whenever called upon to do so by the appellant. Consequently they were unable to meaningfully make private arrangements. As a result of this they aver that they are still owed their leave days. Should that be the case they should... More
This matter was brought to this court for both appeal and review purposes. However before the matter could be argued a point in limine was raised on behalf of the respondents. It was submitted that the appellant is not properly before the court. It was argued that the appellant did not comply with the award being appealed against. For that reason Mr Marimo who appeared on behalf of the respondents submitted that the appellant is in contempt of court and therefore should not be heard. More
Respondents were employed by Appellant on fixed term contracts between 2009 and 2012. The contracts were renewed on an ongoing basis until 2012. Appellant is a non governmental organization funded by donors. It undertakes projects for the good of a particular community, depending on the availability of funding. Appellant’s contracts with its employees are directly related to the funding and projects that it has on a particular time. In 2012 the Respondents’ contracts came to an end and were not renewed. No other persons were employed in their place. More
This is an application for stay of execution of an arbitral award in favour of the Respondent. The award was issued on 20 January 2014. On the 17 February 17 February 2014 Applicant noted an appeal against the arbitral award. The appeal is yet to be heard.
The Respondent opposed the application on the basis that it was made prematurely as the award had not yet been registered. Respondent also raised the issue that the application is not in the prescribed form and is therefore defective. Respondent further denied that there are prospects of success on appeal and that irreparable... More
Appellant was employed by respondent in 2009 on monthly fixed term contracts. It is appellant’s allegation that in July 2011 respondent employed up to sixty employees who were on fixed term contracts, as permanent employees. Appellant was not one of the sixty. From that time to 13th March 2013 appellant did not sign any fixed term contract and neither was he placed on a contract without limit of time. Respondent alleges that the last fixed term contract expired on the 13th March 2013. When his contract of employment was not renewed, appellant made a complaint of unfair dismissal at the... More
At the close of submissions I dismissed the application stating that the reasons would follow. The following are the reasons.
Applicant was employed by Respondent and was charged with contravening section 3.2.4 (c) of Respondent’s Group Employment Code of Conduct. Applicant is alleged to have grossly failed to manage the stocks of explosives in terms of the safety procedures. The Hearing Committee recommended his dismissal. Applicant appealed to the Disciplinary and Grievance Committee which upheld the dismissal. Applicant’s Counsel thereafter appealed to the National Employment Council (NEC) which was in fact the wrong forum. The Applicant has finally approached this... More
