Mercy Dare v Chantell Marais

### Preamble
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE
JUDGMENT NO LC/H/561/2016
HARARE, 22 JULY 2016 &
CASE NO LC/H/LRA/57/2016
9 SEPTEMBER 2016
---------


IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE	        JUDGMENT NO LC/H/561/2016

HARARE, 22 JULY 2016 &				 CASE NO LC/H/LRA/57/2016

9 SEPTEMBER 2016

In the matter between

MERCY DARE							        APPLICANT

Versus

CHANTELL MARAIS						        RESPONDENT

Before the Honourable Musariri & Maxwell JJ

The Applicant in Person

No Appearance for the Respondent

MAXWELL J:

This is an application for confirmation of a ruling made by the applicant in the matter between Regina Chunga and the respondent. The application is made in terms of section 93 (5) of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01] as amended. Regina Chunga was engaged by the respondent as a housemaid on 1 June 2013. On 7 December 2015 she signed a resignation letter which specified what she was owed. The applicant stated that the respondent indicated that she authored the letter as Regina could not write well for other people to understand. On 8 December 2015 Regina made a complaint of unlawful termination of employment, unfair labour practice and non-payment of terminal benefits to the Ministry of Public Service, Labour and Social Services. The complaint was handled by the applicant resulting in the ruling which is subject of these proceedings.

The applicant ruled that Regina’s contract was unlawfully terminated. She ordered the respondent to pay Regina $500-00 for 75 days cash in lieu of leave and also $600-00 for three months’ notice. The total of $1100-00 was to be paid by 17 March 2016. When the matter was placed before us on 22 July 2016 the respondent had not complied with the ruling.

There are two issues for determination in this matter. The first is whether or not the applicant was correct to rule that Regina’s contract of employment was unlawfully terminated. The applicant stated that Regina confirmed signing the letter of resignation, albeit when she was not feeling well. According to the applicant, Regina stated that she only had a grade six qualification and could not write a letter such as the resignation letter and could not understand it. She is alleged to have claimed that she signed thinking that she was acknowledging receipt of salary. Regina’s statements cannot be true. To start with on record there is a resignation letter which she alleged to have personally authored in August 2015 when she had decided to resign. The resignation was not accepted and she continued working. Clearly she understands the meaning of a resignation letter. Her signature does not suggest illiteracy. She could not have thought she was signing for her salary when ordinarily she signed for her salary in a wage book. The signing of the resignation letter by Regina created a presumption that she is acquainted with its contents. In terms of the caveat subscripto rule, she is taken to be bound by the ordinary meaning and effect of the words which appear over her signature. See Ndumiso Mdlongwa v Thembekile Mdlongwa SC 98-05. The applicant was therefore wrong to hold that Regina was not bound by the letter she signed. I am therefore unable to confirm her ruling that Regina’s contract of employment was unlawfully terminated. I find that she resigned as evidenced by the letter on record.

The second issue is whether or not the applicant was correct to rule that Regina was entitled to 75 days cash in lieu of leave amounting to $500-00. The letter of resignation states that Regina is owed $47-00 for one week leave still owed to her. The applicant in her analysis on page 17 of the record states that Regina was ordered to sign and receive $247-00 which the respondent said was for December 2015 salary and cash in lieu of leave for seven days. It follows therefore that Regina was paid for the outstanding leave days. I am therefore unable to confirm the applicant’s ruling that Regina is entitled to $500-00 cash in lieu of leave.

In the final analysis I find that Regina Chunga is not owed anything by the respondent. Resultantly I am unable to confirm the applicant’s ruling.

MAXWELL J: …………………………..

MUSARIRI J: ……………………………      I agree