On 2 October 2014 at Harare, arbitrator C TKadenga issued an arbitration award. She ordered respondent to pay appellant an amount of USD423.52 for leave days. Appellant then appealed to this court. Respondent opposed the appeal. More
CHIVIZHE, J;
The matter was placed before me as an application for quantification of damages pursuant to an order granted by this Court in case LC/H/705/13 which order dismissed respondent’s appeal and upheld an order by the NEC Appeals Committee dated 24th March 2014 which order directing reinstatement. The Court order issued by the Labour Court did not award damages as an alternative for reinstatement. This was clearly contrary to Section 89(2)(c)(iii) of the LabourAct [Cap 28:01] which requires that whenever the Court considers reinstatement as the more appropriate remedy and grants it the employer must still be given an... More
This is a Chamber application in which the applicant sought an order in terms of the draft. The applicant and the fourth respondent consent to an order of the Court in terms of the draft order, as amended. The third respondent’s position is that he will abide by the decision of the Court. More
On 9 December 2015 interim relief was granted in favour of the appellant employer so that the main appeal could be finalised. Since then nothing happened to the matter suggesting that there is no interest to have the appeal concluded. This has occasioned this court to invoke provisions of Section 89 (2) (a) (1) to dispose of the appeal on the papers. More
The Applicant is a Designated Agent with the National Employment Council under the Construction Industry (NEC Construction) duly appointed under the provisions of Section 63 of the Labour Act. The Respondent is a company, duly registered under the laws of Zimbabwe.
Various claimants, who are not joined to this application, approached the National Employment Council for the Construction Industry alleging under payment of wages, non-payment of overtime, notice-pay and scrap allowances. They were also seeking payment of the minimum retrenchment package. The Respondent opposed the matter on the basis that the claimants were not its employees. After hearing the matter... More
