Morgen Paradza v Mashonaland Tobacco Company

### Preamble
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE
JUDGMENT NO LC/H/198/13
HELD AT HARARE 27TH MAY 2013
CASE NO
---------




IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE	  JUDGMENT NO LC/H/198/13

HELD AT HARARE 27TH MAY 2013		  CASE NO LC/H/769/12

MORGEN PARADZA					Appellant

MASHONALAND TOBACCO COMPANY		Respondent

Before The Honourable G Musariri, President

For Appellant		Mr M Paradza, Appellant

For Respondent		Mr G Makings, Attorney

MUSARIRI, G:

On 2nd August 2012 the NEC for the Tobacco Industry made a determination.  It ordered that Respondent pay Appellant an NEC Grade 8 wage.  Appellant then appealed to this Court.  Respondent opposed the appeal.  The grounds of appeal are couched in clumsy terms.  However it became clear in oral argument that Appellant’s case was that the increment he was awarded by NEC is less than what he is entitled to.

Appellant based his case on the Notice issued by the NEC dated 9th March 2009.  A copy is filed of record.  Its penultimate paragraph read as follows,

“Notwithstanding the minimum wages set out in Annexure I below, any employee who is in receipt of a wage in excess of the minimum wages

shall have their wages increased by the percentage difference between the last grade one wage and their last wage.”

Respondent’s attorney urged the Court to construe the notice in light of the circumstances obtaining at the time.  The multi-currency regime had just been established in this country.  Some employers had already started paying wages in United States Dollars (USD) in February 2009.  When the notice came out in March 2009, the idea was to protect the interests of those who had already been awarded USD wages which were higher than the minima set by the NEC.  Appellant had been awarded a wage higher than the minima.  Therefore his wage required no adjustment.  That in essence, was Respondent’s case.

Appellant relied on the specific wording of the Notice.  The underlined portion of the notice made it clear that it was intended to award increments even for employees in receipt of wages above the minima. The percentage increment is provided for.  It was the percentage difference between the last Grade One wage and each employee’s “last wage”.  It is also clear from the context that last wage referred to the Zimbabwe Dollar (ZWD) wage just before “dollarization” in February 2009. Using that formula Appellant calculated the adjustment due on his wage thus,

*101,546,272,790,00 x 69.24**  152.32.

***46,157,396,724.00

The figure marked * represents Appellant’s last ZWD wage per fortnight. The figure marked ** represents his first USD salary set by Respondent.  The figure marked *** represents the last Grade One wage in ZWD.  I am persuaded

that  this calculation expresses the clear intent of the Notice issued by the NEC.  This caters for employees who were already receiving high wages for whatever reason.  They were meant to receive percentage increments similar to their colleagues.  That would accord with the requirement to treat employees equitably.

My finding relates to increases just after dollarization.  It means that Appellant’s current salary needs to be readjusted taking into account all other increments in the period between dollarization and now.  Therefore I shall remit the matter back to the NEC to re-adjust Appellant’s wages in light of my findings and to calculate the shortfalls due to him.

Wherefore it is ordered that,

The appeal is hereby allowed;

The matter is remitted back to the NEC Tobacco Industry for it to

re-adjust upwards, Appellant’s current wage in light of the findings in this judgment and to calculate the shortfalls due to him.

G. MUSARIRI

PRESIDENT