Labour lawCollective bargainingContract interpretation
Keywords
Works Council AgreementFixed-term employeesSalary benefitsOnus of proofRemittal
Tags
Works Council AgreementFixed-term contractsSalary arrearsRemittal
legislation
Statutes Cited
Labour Act
Labour Court Act
Supreme Court Act
Constitution of Zimbabwe
ai analysis
Case Summary
Key Issues
{"issue_text":"Whether the court a quo erred in failing to make a specific finding on whether appellants were covered by the September 2010 Works Council Agreement","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Court a quo found term \"all employees\" ambiguous and invoked onus principle"}
This summary was generated by AI. Use Zalari to read the full judgment.
background
Facts of the Case
Background
153 former security guards employed on fixed-term contracts claimed salary benefits under a 2010 Works Council Agreement. The Labour Court dismissed their claim, finding they failed to prove they were covered by the agreement. The Supreme Court remitted the matter for proper determination.
Read the full judgment, get AI analysis, and find related cases