Makoni Rural District Council v Zimbabwe Rural District Council Workers Union

### Preamble
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE
JUDGMENT NO LC/H/211/23
HARARE, 3 JULY 2023 & 11 JULY 2023
CASE NO LC/H/1085/22
In the matter between:-
MAKONI RURAL DISTRICT COUNCIL
APPELLANT
ZIMBABWE RURAL DISTRICT
RESPONDENT
---------


==============================

IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE

HARARE, 3 JULY 2023 & 11 JULY 2023

In the matter between:-

MAKONI RURAL DISTRICT COUNCIL

ZIMBABWE RURAL DISTRICT COUNCIL WORKERS UNION

Before the Honourable Kudya J

For the Appellant

For the Respondent

KUDYA, J:

This is an appeal against the decision of the designated agent for NEC Rural District Councils where he ordered that applicant pays Union dues for its employees including for some employees who claim to have withdrawn their membership from the Zimbabwe Rural District Council Workers Union.

The appellant filed 4 appeal grounds whose net effect is that the appellant is of the view that it should not be compelled to pay the said dues taking into account that some of the employees have resiled from the union membership. Respondent concedes that no one should be forced to be a union member but hastens to mention that if one wishes to withdraw his membership he should do so following the proper channels. It says that in the case at hand the employee who purports to withdraw their membership did not do so following the proper channels so their withdrawals are invalid. It therefore reasons that the applicant should thus be compelled to pay the union dues. It also argues that appellant did not place before the court the record of proceedings before the Designated Agent which shows how he dealt with the matter to the extent that it is difficult for the court to conclude whether there is a good case or bad case of appeal. The court appreciates the fact that the record could have presented a clearer picture but as stated earlier even though there are protracted arguments on the matter the only sticky issue is whether the union can compel the employer to pay dues to it including those of the employees who withdrew their membership. The union reasons correctly that the membership issue is clearly between it and the employee. In the same reasoning the deduction of an employee’s money is an issue between the employer and his employees. It would be wrong for the employer to oblige an employee to pay when he claims he is no longer part of the union. The employer reasons correctly that forcing it to pay dues for members who have resided from the union would be tantamount to a breach of the employee’s right of freedom of association. The union states that the instant appeal is an appeal calculated to deal with issues already decided by the Designated Agent who gave the 1st ruling on the union dues. It need be noted that before one talks of any quantification or calculation such should have a clear basis at law. In the case at hand it is clear that the so called quantification exercise was based on the wrong understanding of the law. It thus cannot be let to stand. It is clear that the award is in breach of the employee’s right to freedom of association and cannot be made to stand. In the result the appeal should succeed.

IT IS ORDERED THAT

Appeal being merited it be and hereby succeeds. Each party bears own costs.

Warara Associates. Appellant’s Legal Practitioners

Lawmen Law Chambers, Respondent’s Legal Practitioners
--- END OCR FALLBACK ---