Appellant was employed by the Respondent as a Mortuary Assistant. He is alleged to have received money and application forms from one Mrs. Mtandwa. These forms were for Mrs. Mtandwa’s relative who wanted to secure a vacancy as a student nurse. Appellant is alleged to have given the application forms and $200,00 to Mrs. Mokina for processing. Matters came to a head when this vacancy did not materialize and Mrs. Mtandwa made a report to the police. Appellant was brought before a Disciplinary Committee which recommended his dismissal. Appellant appealed to the Health Services Board which confirmed his dismissal. Appellant... More
The present appeal was noted against an arbitral award handed down on 8 August, 2013.
The appellant was employed by the respondent. She was engaged on the 1 June 2007 on the basis of a fixed five year contract which was renewable annually. The contract was due to terminate in December, 2012. In 2008 however due to economic and financial constraints the respondent decided to vary the employment contract from five year contract to a short term contract i.e one year fixed term which was renewable at respondent instance. More
On the 30th January, 2013 this Court dealt with an application for quantification of damages, the judgment which was delivered on the 2nd August, 2013. More
Applicants worked for Respondent. A collective job action took place. Respondent charged Applicants with misconduct. Thereafter Respondent dismissed Applicants from its employ.
Applicants filed in this Court an application for review of their dismissal. Respondent opposed the application More
This is an appeal against the decision of an Arbitrator. The background to the appeal is as follows
The appellant was employed by the Respondent. He was charged with wilfully applying a wrong use, or unauthorised purpose to assets or property; or alternatively carrying out an act which is inconsistent with the express or implied conditions of the employment contract. More
Respondent was charged of theft of company property in terms of the Appellant’s own internal Code of Conduct. Criminal proceedings were instituted and he was convicted. The disciplinary proceedings found that on the basis of the evidence before the Committee, it was not possible to conclude that Respondent had stolen the motor in question. He was however found guilty and dismissed on the basis of the conviction in the criminal matter.
Appellant’s own internal Code of Conduct was registered in the early 1990s. the National Employment Council (NEC) registered a Code of Conduct for the Industry in 2012. More
