The Respondent was employed by the Appellant as a shift leader and maintenance for a period of more than five years. His duties were to take care of repairs and maintenance of factory machines which included extruders, expellers, grinding mills and other machines. It is alleged that on 26 September 2012 he switched off extruder number 1 and increased the speed of extruder number 2. The increased speed caused extruder 2 to be congested resulting in production stoppage. The stoppage caused a production loss of $1 487. Respondent was charged in terms of section 4 of SI 15 of 2006.... More
The applicants approached the court seeking for rescission of judgment in terms of order 49 rule 449 (1) of the High Court Rules, 1971. The issue that falls for determination is whether or not the judgment sought to be rescinded was erroneously granted. More
Respondent was in the employ of Appellant, a firm of legal practitioners. Following the termination of her contract, Respondent approached the Ministry of Labour Offices. Attempts at conciliation failed and the matter was referred to arbitration. The arbitrator found in favour of Respondent. Appellant is not satisfied with this award and has appealed to this Court. More
The Appellant employed the Respondent as a Till Controller at its Kwekwe Branch.
She was charged with an act of misconduct it being alleged that she had unsatisfactorily performed her work and lacked the necessary skills for a person employed in her capacity. She was found guilty and dismissed. She successfully challenged her dismissal before both the Local Joint Committee (LJC) and the Negotiating Committee (NC). This appeal is by the employer (Appellant) against the decision of the NC. which reversed its decision to dismiss. More
This is an appeal against an arbitral award.
Respondents are former employees of the Appellant. It seems that the last contracts signed were fixed term contracts running from 1st January 2012 to 31st March 2012. More
Appellant’s grounds of appeal were four-fold and read as follows,
“1. The Code of Conduct used by the company to dismiss the Appellant is not registered with the NEC and therefore is inconsistent with the National Code or Labour Relations Act [Chapter 28:01].
2. The Disciplinary Hearing Committee misdirected itself on the facts and law.
3. The same committee’s hearing was motivated by bias.
4. The Disciplinary Hearing Committee conducted its proceedings in an irregular manner.” More
This is an appeal against the decision of the Respondent’s General Manager who upheld the Appellant’s dismissal following a disciplinary hearing where Appellant was found guilty of unlawfully disobeying a lawful order and gross inefficiency in performance of his work in breach of the Respondent’s Code of Conduct. More
