Munyaradzi Hove v Zimphos (Pvt) Ltd

Key Issues

• {"issue_text":"Was the disciplinary committee properly constituted in terms of S.I. 31 of 2011?","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Committee had 2 management and 2 worker representatives plus chairperson from management"}
• {"issue_text":"Did the appellant's statement amount to misrepresentation or dishonesty under the Code of Conduct?","issue_type":"mixed","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Statement claimed overtime leave was not negotiable when it was subject to mutual agreement"}
• {"issue_text":"Did the appellant have mandate as a worker representative to post the statement?","issue_type":"factual","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"No evidence of appointment as \"Day Workers' Committee Secretary\" or mandate from workers committee"}
• {"issue_text":"Was the penalty of dismissal excessive in the circumstances?","issue_type":"law","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Misconduct had potential to disrupt cost-saving negotiations during company's financial difficulties"}

Background