Respondent was employed by Appellant on 25 August 2004 as a mechanic. In October 2005 Respondent went to work in Japan. Appellant alleges that by the time Respondent went to Japan the contract of employment had been terminated and Respondent had been given his terminal benefits. Respondent alleges that it is Appellant who sent him to Japan to work as a workshop foreman. Respondent alleges that it was a mere transfer and the contract of employment continued with the same terms and conditions as had been pertaining in Zimbabwe. Respondent further alleges that Appellant continued to pay his salary in... More
The applicants were employed by the respondent in different capacities. The applicants raised a grievance claiming they were being underpaid and nonpayment of shift allowances. The matter was subsequently referred to an arbitrator Honourable Chavura. The arbitral award, whose interpretation is the basis of this application was made in the following terms
“… I order that they (applicants) be paid the balance of their wages and the outstanding shift allowances, plus interest of 30% per annum. The union should assist the employer in calculating the outstanding wages and allowances …” More
The Applicant was employed by the 2nd Respondent. Following allegations of misconduct she was suspended in terms of the provisions of the National Code of Conduct SI 15/2006. A hearing was thereafter conducted and she was found guilty and was dismissed. Applicant appealed to the Appeals Officer but was unsuccessful. She then appealed to Labour Relations Officer. Conciliation proceedings were conducted but the matter was not settled and was subsequently referred to arbitration. More
On 20 January 2014 at Harare, the Honourable E Maganyani made an arbitration award. In terms thereof he dismissed appellant’s claims of unlawful termination of their employment contracts by respondent. Appellants then appealed to this Court. Respondent opposed the appeal. At the onset of oral argument, appellants abandoned their argument that the Notice of Response was defective. They then focused on their main argument. It was based on the provisions of the Labour (National Employment Code of Conduct) Regulations S.I. 15/06 (hereafter called the Code). Section 5 (c) of the code provides that, More
Applicant has approached this Court in terms of section 93 (7) of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01]. The facts of this matter are somewhat enmeshed. The Court will seek to summarise them hereunder. More
