Zimbabwe United Passenger Company v Jacqueline Gandidzanwa

Key Issues

• {"issue_text":"Whether the disciplinary authority should have recused himself due to bias","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"The disciplinary authority was also subject to RBM targets and had failed to meet them; colleagues in similar positions had been charged while he had not."}
• {"issue_text":"Whether the respondent was given sufficient time to perform under the RBM contract before being charged","issue_type":"fact","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"The respondent signed the RBM contract on 24 March 2014 and was charged on 24 April 2014."}
• {"issue_text":"Whether the respondent's performance was affected by other departments","issue_type":"fact","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"The respondent claimed bus availability and wage bill issues were caused by other departments."}
• {"issue_text":"Whether the arbitrator's award was inconsistent","issue_type":"law","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"The arbitrator found the respondent failed to meet targets but set aside the dismissal."}

Background