Respondent was employed by Appellant as Executive Director. It is common cause that Appellant reduced Respondent’s contracts to yearly contracts with effect from 2006. Respondent was subsequently informed of the termination of her duties on 3 November 2009. Respondent was replaced by another Executive Director who had started work prior to Respondent’s termination of contract. The matter was brought before an arbitrator who found in Respondent’s favour. However, both Appellant and Respondent are dissatisfied with the arbitrator’s decision albeit on different grounds. More
This is an appeal against the decision of the Respondent Hospital’s Appeals Body which ruled that, the Appellants were guilty of contravening the Hospital’s Code of Conduct, by referring to various bodies communication about transport problems at the hospital and the acting which they intended to take in reaction to that. The act was alleged to discredit the hospital hence, the charges in question. More
The respondent was employed as a clerk by the appellant. In or around 2005 to 2006 the respondent was charged by the appellant for failure to obey a lawful instruction in that the appellant had been transferred from Penhalonga to Mutasa Rural District Council but had not reported for duty. This led to her dismissal. Aggrieved by the dismissal, the respondent approached a labour officer for conciliation. More
This is an appeal against an arbitral decision declining jurisdiction to deal with the matter. In 2004 the Appellants were dismissed from employment. In 2006 their reinstatement was ordered by the Midlands Local Joint Committee. The decision to reinstate was affirmed by the Negotiating Committee after the Respondent appealed. Thereafter the Respondent noted an appeal against that decision in this Court. The appeal was noted on 14 June 2013. The Respondent did not comply with the order of reinstatement. The matter was referred for compulsory arbitration for quantification of damages. More
The appellant was employed as a Human Resources Officer by the respondent. The appellant is alleged to have reported for work on 6 April 2012 to check on the whereabouts of newly-recruited employees. He is then alleged to have committed acts of misconduct which culminated in his dismissal. The matter was referred to an arbitrator who confirmed such dismissal. The appellant has appealed to this Court. More
The brief facts of this matter are that:
(1) The respondent was employed by the appellant as a bakery checker
(2) On 11 July 2011 he was suspended from employment without pay and benefits.
(3) On 15 July 2011 the respondent was phoned by a workmate to report at work on that day. He appeared for a hearing that day and he was dismissed from work.
(4) On the 29 of July 2011 the respondent received a formal notification of the hearing. He was being charged for gross incompetence in performance of duties and habitual substantial neglect of duty.
(5)... More
