Zimpapers Logo

A report of the missing jacket was made and a search was carried out, but the jacket was not recovered.
Manjoro took the jacket and kept it in his locker for six months.
Thereafter, he took the jacket home.
He said he took it home for safekeeping and later heard that someone was looking for a jacket.
Manjoro wore the jacket and was seen by Mavhudzi who confronted him and was given back his jacket.
It was after this that Manjoro was charged with and convicted of theft.
He was dismissed and his internal appeal failed.
Manjoro was aggrieved by the decision and he appealed to the Labour Court.
He argued that the company had suf­fered no prejudice and he had resolved the matter between himself and Mavhudzi.
Manjoro further argued that he had a clean disciplinary record having worked for the company for 34 years.
Manjoro submitted that he had no inten­tion to permanently deprive Mavhudzi of his jacket.
Labour Court president, Ms Euna Maka­mure, noted that Olivine Industries had suffered no prejudice, but that did not mean a misconduct was not committed.
Said Ms Makamure: “The fact that Man­joro had a clean disciplinary record and further that the jacket was recovered are mitigatory features.
“I believe that these were adequately considered by the earlier tribunal. It appears fortuitous that Manjoro heard that Mavhudzi was looking for his jacket.”
Had that not happened, she said, it was doubtful that the jacket would have been returned to its owner.
Further, Manjoro must have known what to do with lost and found property because he had worked for the company for a very long time.
“At the very least, he should have handed it over to the security guard at the entrance to the Olivine premises the very day he found it,” said Ms Makamure.
“I believe that if that had been done, the owner would have got his jacket soon after it had been lost.”
She noted that Manjoro decided to take the jacket home and found that to be unac­ceptable.
Ms Makamure said there was no con­vincing reason why he did so and in the circumstances found no merit in Manjoro’s appeal.
AN Olivine Industries employee James Manjoro has been fired for stealing a fel­low worker’s jacket which he kept in his locker for six months.
It was common cause that David Mavhudzi worked for the company when his jacket went missing.
A report of the missing jacket was made and a search was carried out, but the jacket was not recovered.
Manjoro took the jacket and kept it in his locker for six months.
Thereafter, he took the jacket home.
He said he took it home for safekeeping and later heard that someone was looking for a jacket.
Manjoro wore the jacket and was seen by Mavhudzi who confronted him and was given back his jacket.
It was after this that Manjoro was charged with and convicted of theft.
He was dismissed and his internal appeal failed.
Manjoro was aggrieved by the decision and he appealed to the Labour Court.
He argued that the company had suf­fered no prejudice and he had resolved the matter between himself and Mavhudzi.
Manjoro further argued that he had a clean disciplinary record having worked for the company for 34 years.
Manjoro submitted that he had no inten­tion to permanently deprive Mavhudzi of his jacket.
Labour Court president, Ms Euna Maka­mure, noted that Olivine Industries had suffered no prejudice, but that did not mean a misconduct was not committed.
Said Ms Makamure: “The fact that Man­joro had a clean disciplinary record and further that the jacket was recovered are mitigatory features.
“I believe that these were adequately considered by the earlier tribunal. It appears fortuitous that Manjoro heard that Mavhudzi was looking for his jacket.”
Had that not happened, she said, it was doubtful that the jacket would have been returned to its owner.
Further, Manjoro must have known what to do with lost and found property because he had worked for the company for a very long time.
“At the very least, he should have handed it over to the security guard at the entrance to the Olivine premises the very day he found it,” said Ms Makamure.
“I believe that if that had been done, the owner would have got his jacket soon after it had been lost.”
She noted that Manjoro decided to take the jacket home and found that to be unac­ceptable.
Ms Makamure said there was no con­vincing reason why he did so and in the circumstances found no merit in Manjoro’s appeal.