Matanuska Marketing P/L v Stephen Saineti & 2 Ors

### Preamble
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE
JUDGMENT NO. LC/H/84/2016
HARARE, 12 JANUARY 2016
CASE NO.
---------




IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE	 JUDGMENT NO. LC/H/84/2016

HARARE, 12 JANUARY 2016			       CASE NO. LC/H/574/15

AND 19 FEBRUARY 2016

In the matter between:-

MATANUSKA MARKETING P/L			Appellant

And

STEPHEN SAINETI & 2 ORS				Respondents

Before Honourable B.S. Chidziva, Judge

For Appellant		Mr l Muzungu  (Human Resources Manager)

For Respondents		Mr S Saineti & 2 Ors

CHIDZIVA, J:

This is an appeal against the decision of Arbitrator E.R. Chako that was handed down on 1 July 2015.  The award was couched as follows;

“(1)	The applicants were unfairly dismissed.

(2)	The applicants be reinstated without loss of benefits or the respondent pay damages in lieu of reinstatement.”

The background history of this matter is that the respondents were employed by the appellant.  Respondents raised their grievances to the appellant.  This however resulted in a hearing and subsequent dismissal.  The matter went for arbitration and the Arbitrator ruled in respondents’ favour.

The appellant’s grounds of appeal are that the Honourable Arbitrator grossly erred and misdirected herself on a question of law, by

Interfering with the discretion of the employer to dismiss employees found guilty of misconduct which strike to the root of the employment contract.

Failing to find that a disciplinary hearing was convened wherein it determined the disciplinary matter in absentia as respondents had abandoned the disciplinary meeting.

Failing to find that the offences committed by respondents constituted breaches of their employment contracts.

On these grounds the appellant prayed that the arbitral award be set aside and substituted with an order confirming the dismissal of respondents by the Disciplinary Committee.

The respondents in response told the court that,

The respondents did not at any time act in a manner that was contrary to the expectation of the appellant.  The respondents were not called for a hearing but for a meeting to air their grievances as was directed by the Labour Officer. They were however dismissed before they had been given a chance to represent themselves.

The respondents never abandoned the conciliation process and it was by agreement that parties wanted to resolve the issue before the Arbitrator was compulsorily agreed.

To start with the parties have presented two different versions of what actually transpired on the day in question.  Appellant has told the court that respondents abandoned disciplinary proceedings.  On the other hand the respondents told the court that they were called to air their grievances but they were dismissed before they had aired their grievance.  There is evidence from the letter that was written by the Labour officer Mr Chinakidzwa dated 15 June 2011 in which he directed appellant to address the grievances that the respondents had raised.

There is nothing on record to show that a disciplinary hearing was conducted and the respondents walked away.  The record does not have anything filed to show that the appellant tried to resolve the grievances that the respondents had raised

It is clear from the evidence filed of record that appellant’s arbitrator dismissed the respondents.  As the Arbitrator correctly pointed out Section 71 (b) states that,

“1	No person shall

(b)	threaten any employee with any reprisal for any lawful action taken by him in advancing or protecting his rights or interests.”

Section 2A 1(e) of the Labour Act [Cap 28:01] states that,

“The purpose of this Act is to advance Social justice and democracy in the work place by the promotion of that participation by employees in decisions affecting their interests in the work place.”

The appellant’s conduct amounted to threatening the respondent’s respondents who had aired the grievances to the Labour Officer.  Furthermore by this summary dismissal from work the appellant violated the Labour Act whose purpose is to bring social justice at work.

In view of this therefore this court finds that the appeal lacks merit.

Accordingly it is ordered that

The appeal be and is hereby dismissed.

The arbitral award by Honourable E.R. Chako dated 1 June 2015 be and is hereby upheld.