Court upholds cashier’s dismissal

cash.
Nyemwererai Chiripanyanga had appealed to the Labour Court against her dismissal.
She was arguing that the disciplinary hearing was held after the stipulated 30 days against the law.
However, Noczim replied that an appeal does not address procedural issues and it was trite law that if a litigant was aggrieved by the method of the trial, it was proper to bring that case on review.
Labour Court president Mr Godfrey Musariri agreed with Noczim that the court now had power of review.
As such, procedural improprieties should be raised through an application for review rather than an appeal.
According to the merits of the case, the appeals committee’s deliberations noted that Chiripanyanga was the cashier and custodian of the cash.
The fact that cash would disappear without her making any report made her a non-credible person.
There was proof that Chiripanyanga did some under banking and she covered up her shortfall by rolling over cash of the next day to cover the previous day’s shortfall.
The appeals committee noted that had it not been for the discovery of these shortfalls this could have gone undetected, which showed that the appellant had an element of dishonesty in the conduct of her duties.
Mr Musariri observed that the heart of Chiripanyanga’s case was that she did not steal the money and had reimbursed Noczim the sum of US$3 000.
Mr Musariri said: “This was apparently confirmed by her acquittal on the charge of theft by the disciplinary committee.
“However, she was found guilty of conduct inconsistent with her contract of employment.”
She failed to report shortfalls over a certain period resulting in a significant loss of her employer.
“A cashier is expected to exhibit high standards of honesty in handling cash and appellant fell short of these standards.
“She worsened her case by dishonestly covering up the shortfall,” said Mr Musariri.
He ruled that dismissal was appropriate in the circum-stances and dismissed Chiripanyanga’s appeal.