The appellant was employed by the respondent until the 16th of January 2015 when he was dismissed from employment following a disciplinary hearing.
The background to this case is not in dispute. Appellant was employed as a section manager within the Commercial Layers Division. Prior to her transfer to that section, appellant worked at the Hatchery as an assistant manager.
While working at the Hatchery she was charged for misconduct and found liable. She was issued with a final written warning coupled with a transfer to the Commercial Layers Division. The warning was valid for twelve months. This was in... More
On 10October 2014, the applicant filed an application in this court seeking the following relief:
“IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. That the findings and recommendations of the Board of Inquiry and the discharge notice are hereby null and void
2. The applicant be and is hereby reinstated without loss of salary and benefits from the date on which they withheld
3. The costs be borne by the Respondents.” More
This is an appeal against an arbitral award.
The appellant was employed by the respondent on monthly fixed term contracts as a rigger for a period spanning two years. The last such contract expired on 31 August 2010. This was then replaced with a contract running from the 1 to 5 September 2010. This last contract was not renewed. More
On the 8th of December 2015, Manyangadze J issued a judgment in which the Honourable Judge considered whether or not Appellant’s dismissal from Respondent’s employ by the National Executive was lawful. More
The appeal was referred to me for determination on the record in terms of Section 89 (2)(a)(i) of the Labour Act [Cap 28 : 01]. The appeal was filed in 2014 but has been lying idle due to a failure on Appellant’s part to settle sheriff’s costs for services of Notice of Set-Down. Through a directive issued on 3rd October, 2016 the Senior Judge directed the referral of all such matters for determination on the record. I proceed to determine the matter. More
This is an appeal against the respondent’s appeals committee (“AC”) decision. The AC confirmed the appellant’s conviction of a charge of deliberate refusal to carry out a lawful instruction given by a person in authority. This was a violation of section 3.5.1 of the respondent’s Code of Conduct. More
The facts giving rise to the case are that the employees after leaving the respondent’s employment approached an arbitrator arguing that they were owed money by respondent. They say that the money was what they should have been paid because they were doing the duties of a shopkeeper and therefore entitled to the salary for that grade.
The arbitrator ruled that they had only managed to demonstrate that they were working as general hands. To that end they are not owed what they claimed except for a few days leave which the employer agreed to pay them. An order was... More
