The record shows two actions that the appellant took, following the decision of the respondent’s Disciplinary Authority to dismiss her from employment. The Disciplinary Authority found the appellant guilty of misconduct in terms of the Labour (National Employment Code of Conduct) Regulations, S I 15 of 2006. More
The appellant was employed by the respondent as a senior teller. Following suspicions that she disclosed confidential information to certain individuals. She was charged. She was charged with two acts of misconduct disclosing confidential information obtained in the course of one’s duties and violating safety rules or measures with serious consequences. The designated officer found her liable after considering the evidence and dismissed the appellant. Appellant appealed to the Mashonaland Local Joint Committee which upheld the decision of the Designated Officer. Dissatisfied by the decision appellant approached the Negotiating Committee on appeal. The Negotiating Committee upheld the dismissal of the... More
At the commencement of the proceedings the court invited Mr Bhebhe, appearing for the respondent, to address it on why the Notice of Response was not filed timeously in compliance with the Labour Court Rules. Mr Bhebhe submitted that the respondent advised that it had not had sight of the Form LC2 as the person who had received the document had not retained a copy. Mr Bhebhe further submitted that the respondent was only jolted into action when Heads of Argument were served on it on 7 May 2014. It was argued on behalf of the respondent that though this... More
Applicant was employed by the Respondent. He was charged for misconduct and was found guilty and was dismissed from employment. On 2 October 2013 Applicant noted an appeal in this Court. The appeal was opposed on 15 October 2013 Applicant failed to file heads of argument within the stipulated time. Respondent applied for and was granted an order in terms of Rule 19 3 (a) of the Labour Court Rules SI 59/06. More
The background facts are that the applicant was employed as a Manager at Hard Chrome Company. He was charged with two acts of misconduct arising from allegations that he had on the 35th November 2009 paid $100.00 as booking fees for Mlibizi Lodge without seeking approval. He then from December 24th – 31st 2009 abused the facility at Mbibizi by allowing Mr Du Sat who was not a company employee and his family to occupy the company facilities for 8 days using applicant’s receipt thus prejudicing the company of $1 419.00. On the second count it was respondent’s allegation applicant... More
Respondent was employed by the appellant as an office orderly/clerk when he was charged of contravening schedule 4 of the National Employment Council Welfare and Educational Institutions Code of Conduct (the Code), in particular section 4.23 for having committed sexual harassment. The facts giving rise to the charges were that he was alleged to have sexually harassed some female students by being sexually abusive and improperly associating with them. More
