Respondent was employed by Appellant. Respondent’s contract was allegedly unprocedurally terminated and the matter was referred to arbitration. The arbitrator found in Respondent’s favour by ordering reinstatement. Appellant was however uncomfortable with reinstating Respondent and requested the arbitrator to proceed with quantification of damages in lieu of reinstatement. The arbitrator proceeded to do this and Appellant is dissatisfied and has approached this Court on appeal. More
The Applicant in casu who had been represented throughout but was now appearing as a self actor explained the extent of delay and the reasons thereof. He submitted that the extent of delay being 3 months was a short period of delay. He had to wait for 3 months from the date of receipt of the quantification award due to discussions that were ongoing between the parties. He was also short of funds and could not secure the services of a legal practitioner. Upon retaining the services of counsel he had then filed the present application for condonation of late... More
At the hearing of this matter, appellant raised a point in limine, to the effect that the Trade Union representing the respondents cannot do so without showing proof of its authority to represent the respondents.
I reserved judgment on the point in limine, and directed that the parties file supplementary Heads of Argument covering that aspect i.e. the Trade Union’s locus standi in judicio. The parties duly filed their supplementary Heads of Argument. More
An arbitral award was made in this matter dealing with the parties’ employment dispute. Both parties were not satisfied by the arbitral award of 14 November 2011. The appellants noted an appeal to this court under case number LC/H/694/11 and the Respondent filed a cross appeal under case number LC/H/698/11. An application was made to this court for consolidation of the two cases. The application was granted. To avoid confusion in references Sydney Rukweza and Godfrey Duwati shall be referred to as the appellants and Marondera Rural District Council shall be referred to as the cross appellant. More
The Appellant noted an appeal against the determination by the National Employment Council for the Textile Industry Appeals Board dated 8 April 2013 which determination upheld the Appellant’s conviction on the charge of theft and the imposition of the dismissal penalty. More
The appellants were formerly employed by Fleximail until on or about August 2011 when they were transferred to Chloride Zimbabwe. Fleximail is a division of Art Corporation, as is Chloride Zimbabwe whose proper citation is Art Corporation Limited t/a Chloride Zimbabwe.
Appellants were moved from one division of the same company to another division. Noteworthy is that they moved from the paper industry to the battery industry. They were placed into grades as close as possible to those they had occupied in the paper industry. At the time of transfer, the appellants’ remuneration was above that in the battery industry. More
This judgment is for three matters which were heard separately but with similar facts. The Respondents were employed by the Appellant. Allegations are that they were jointly charged and convicted of theft. A penalty of dismissal was imposed. Respondents appealed to the NEC for the Plastics Manufacturing Industry. The NEC determined the matters individually resulting in three determinations being issued nullifying the dismissal of the Respondents and reinstating them without loss of salary and benefits. Appellant was aggrieved and appealed against each of the determinations. Three records were opened in this Court. More
