{"issue_text":"Whether the employment relationship continued while respondent worked in Japan","issue_type":"mixed","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Respondent's transfer to Japan, salary payments, work arrangements"}
{"issue_text":"Whether the arbitrator had jurisdiction to determine the matter","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Employment relationship, international assignment"}
{"issue_text":"Whether the arbitrator erred in awarding leave days in USD without proper conversion","issue_type":"law","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Currency of payment during Zimbabwe dollar era"}
This summary was generated by AI. Use Zalari to read the full judgment.
background
Facts of the Case
Background
The respondent was employed by appellant as a mechanic in 2004. In 2005 he went to work in Japan. Appellant claims the employment was terminated before he left, while respondent claims it was a transfer and he continued receiving salary in Zimbabwe dollars. In 2012, respondent claimed unpaid leave days and allowances for his time in Japan. The arbitrator found in his favour, ordering payment of $3000 for 90 leave days.
Read the full judgment, get AI analysis, and find related cases