Ajasi Wala v Freda Rebecca Mine SC 56 – 16

The case is amongst the countless judgements that posit that when an employee serves his or her personal interests at the expense of the employer’s interests, dismissal is warranted.

Read the rest

The case is amongst the countless judgements that posit that when an employee serves his or her personal interests at the expense of the employer’s interests, dismissal is warranted.

This content is for Paid Content Membership members only.
Login Join Now

ZB Bank v Maria Masunda SC 48 – 16

If an employee commits an offence that goes to the root of the employment relationship, the employer has the discretion to dismiss the employee.

Read the rest

If an employee commits an offence that goes to the root of the employment relationship, the employer has the discretion to dismiss the employee.

This content is for Paid Content Membership members only.
Login Join Now

NEC – Catering Industry v Richard Kundeya & Others SC 35-2016[1]

The first lesson is that if an employee commits a serious offence, the employer has a choice to dismiss the employee.

Read the rest

The first lesson is that if an employee commits a serious offence, the employer has a choice to dismiss the employee.

This content is for Paid Content Membership members only.
Login Join Now

Eunice Madondo v Conquip Zimbabwe (Private) Limited SC (25 – 16)

The case is clear cut, once an individual communicates unequivocally that they are leaving employment, it means they have resigned. It does not matter whether such communication is in the form of a Pension Withdrawal Form, email, verbally etc.

This
Read the rest

The case is clear cut, once an individual communicates unequivocally that they are leaving employment, it means they have resigned. It does not matter whether such communication is in the form of a Pension Withdrawal Form, email, verbally etc.

This content is for Paid Content Membership members only.
Login Join Now

National Engineering Workers Union v Dube (SC 1 – 2016)

What is likely to catch one’s eye is the way the Court distinguished between a disciplinary committee and a disciplinary authority. There is therefore no restriction as to who can form an authority, the size, and the composition. All is … Read the rest

What is likely to catch one’s eye is the way the Court distinguished between a disciplinary committee and a disciplinary authority. There is therefore no restriction as to who can form an authority, the size, and the composition. All is left at the discretion of the employer.

This content is for Paid Content Membership and Free Membership members only.
Login Join Now

ZIMPLATS v Ronald Godide (SC 2 – 2016)

ZIMPLATS v Ronald Godide (SC 2 – 2016) deals with the discretion of an employer to dismiss an employee upon taking a serious view of the offence committed. It also explains why an employer is entitled to look at the … Read the rest

ZIMPLATS v Ronald Godide (SC 2 – 2016) deals with the discretion of an employer to dismiss an employee upon taking a serious view of the offence committed. It also explains why an employer is entitled to look at the previous disciplinary record of the employee.

This content is for Paid Content Membership and Free Membership members only.
Login Join Now

CIMAS v Tapiwa Nyandoro (SC 6 – 2016)

The judgement was well reasoned in our view, an employer is not under an obligation to reinstate an employee who has shown an unequivocal intention not to be part of the employer. The lesson for the employees is that taking … Read the rest

The judgement was well reasoned in our view, an employer is not under an obligation to reinstate an employee who has shown an unequivocal intention not to be part of the employer. The lesson for the employees is that taking employment under company “A” whilst you are still employed with company “B” terminates employment with company “B”. In addition, there is also the lesson that reinstatement in terms of a code of conduct does not entitle an employee to damages in lieu of reinstatement.

This content is for Free Membership and Paid Content Membership members only.
Login Join Now

Browne v Tanganda Tea Company (SC 22-16)

If an employer knows of an offence committed by an employee and does nothing to charge and discipline the employee prescription starts to run. If under those circumstances, two years elapse, the offence prescribes and cannot be raised in a … Read the rest

If an employer knows of an offence committed by an employee and does nothing to charge and discipline the employee prescription starts to run. If under those circumstances, two years elapse, the offence prescribes and cannot be raised in a judicial forum.

This content is for Free Membership members only.
Login Join Now
error: Content is protected !!