The matters before me are an application for Review and an Appeal. At the hearing, Applicant proceeded to raise the point in limine that Respondent filed its Notice of Response out of time. As there was no application for condonation before me, I was urged to proceed to deal with the matter as unopposed and enter default judgment in favour of Applicant/Appellant. More
________________________________________________________________
On 19 May 2014 this Court handed down an order against the employees where the employer had applied to the Court in termsof Rule 19 (3) (a), to have the review application which it had filed with the court to be granted in default of the employees’ filing of heads of argument timeously as required by the rules. The employees through their lawyers have requested this court to furnish them with the full reasons for that order and these are they More
The Respondent was employed by the Appellant as a Regional Site Acquisition Supervisor. The record shows that the Respondent was head hunted by the Appellant through the internet. Prior to joining Appellant he was employed in Uganda. He relocated to Zimbabwe when he got employment with the Appellant. The Respondent’s contract of employment commenced on 10th of December 2009. Less than four months into the job the Respondent was dismissed from employment by the Appellant. The matter was referred to the Labour Officer and consequently to an Arbitrator. The Arbitrator handed down the first award in favour of the Respondent. More
On 30 August 2013 the NEC for the Engineering & Iron And Steel Industry made a determination. It ordered that Appellant should reinstate Respondents’ employment. It further ordered that the matter should be reheard by a “properly composed” disciplinary committee. Appellant then appealed to this Court against the determination. Respondents opposed the appeal. The appeal raised both procedural and substantive issues. More
The brief facts of the matter are as follows. The applicant dismissed the respondent from its employ following a hearing conducted by the Regional Hearing Committee. In terms of the applicable Code the National Hearing Committee has the power to vary a decision from its lower tribunal. The National Hearing Committee exercised its discretion and varied the dismissal to a Final Written Warning. This aggrieved the applicant and it appealed to this Court on the basis that the National Hearing Committee misdirected itself by varying the sentence and that it ought not to have interfered. This Court dismissed the appeal... More
The appellant appeals to this Court against the determination made by its appellate body. In brief the respondent was dismissed by the Regional Hearing Committee following disciplinary proceedings. In terms of the applicable Code the National Hearing Committee (NHC) varied the dismissal penalty to a Final Written Warning. This aggrieved the appellant hence this appeal. More
This is an appeal against the decision of the National Hearing Committee (“N.H.C”) which set aside the dismissal penalty which had been meted out on the respondent by the Regional Hearing Committee (“R.H.C”). More
