This is an appeal against an arbitral award handed down on 16 July 2013, which ruled that the appellant was lawfully dismissed from employment.
The brief factual background is that the appellant was employed by the respondent as Bakery Supervisor. Sometime in 2006, an employee under the appellant’s supervision went off duty for more than 2 days. There was no record of the off duty arrangement. It was done with without the approval of senior management. It also emerged that employees would make verbal, internal arrangements whereby some would take days off with others signing on their behalf.
The appellant... More
The appellant was employed by the respondent as the Acting Area Manager at Karoi Depot. It was alleged that the appellant had, during the course of his duties, overstated the figures of seed cotton which had been bought at his depot. Misconduct charges were preferred against the appellant. He was found guilty and dismissed from employment. He appealed to the Managing Director, who dismissed the appeal. The appellant took his matter to the National Employment Council for the Cotton Industry which Tribunal also dismissed his appeal. The appellant has thus sought relief from this court. More
In December 2014 both resigned from employment with immediate effect without giving the requisite notice.
After resigning, the Respondents lodged a complaint with the Labour Officer claiming non-payment of salaries. Conciliation failed and as a result, the dispute was referred to arbitration.
The issues for determination by the Arbitrator were stated as:
1. Were claimants (Respondents) entitled to payment of salary arrears and cash in lieu of leave?
2. Were claimants (Respondents) obliged to give notice.
and
3. The appropriate remedy. More
This is an application in terms of s 85(1)(a) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No. 20) 2013 (“the Constitution”) alleging that the applicant’s fundamental right to administrative conduct that is lawful, prompt, efficient, reasonable, proportionate, impartial and both substantively and procedurally fair enshrined in s 68(1) of the Constitution has been infringed. The cause of the alleged infringement is the decision by the first respondent to withdraw an offer letter given to the applicant to occupy a piece of agricultural land without giving her an opportunity to be heard on the proposed withdrawal of the offer letter. More
