Motec Heavy Machinery Company v Farainashe Matina

### Preamble
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE
JUDGMENT NO LC/H/711/2016
HARARE, 24 OCTOBER 2016 &
4 NOVEMBER 2016
CASE NO LC/H/1019/2014
---------


IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE	       JUDGMENT NO LC/H/711/2016

HARARE, 24 OCTOBER 2016 &	                                         CASE NO LC/H/1019/2014

4 NOVEMBER 2016

In the matter between:

MOTEC HEAVY MACHINERY COMPANY			          APPELLANT

Versus

FARAINASHE MATINA					                    RESPONDENT

Before The Honourable Manyangadze J

(IN CHAMBERS)

MANYANGADZE J:

The court proceeded to deal with this appeal on the record, in terms of section 89 (2)(a)(i) of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01] (“the Act”).

This is an appeal against an arbitral award handed down on 20 October 2014, which was in the following terms:

“The respondent to pay claimant the remaining net balance of $29 766-00 plus interest at the prescribed rate forthwith.”

The brief background to the matter is that the respondent was employed by the appellant as General Manager. He resigned from employment in September 2013.

The arbitral award shows that the parties agreed that the respondent be paid terminal benefits in the sum of US$45 004-28. The terminal benefits consisted of arrear salaries and cash-in-lieu of leave. The appellant made down-payments in terms of an agreed payment plan, leaving a balance of US$29 766-00.

The respondent lodged a complaint with a labour officer when the appellant failed to pay the outstanding balance, reneging on the agreed payment plan. When conciliation failed the matter went to compulsory arbitration. The arbitrator ruled that the outstanding balance be paid forthwith, prompting the appeal to this court.

The grounds of appeal are stated as follows:

“The arbitrator should not have declined to hear the case.

An agreement and acknowledgment of debt existed.

The time 31 December 2014 is the time to extinguish the debt had not expired.”

The appeal is not in any way contesting the appellant’s indebtedness to the respondent, in the sum indicated.

The arbitral award does not show any attempt by the appellant (then the respondent) to explain why he was making irregular, piece-meal payments, which prompted the respondent (then the claimant) to approach a labour officer.

It seems the appellant tried to argue that the arbitrator had no business adjudicating on a debt issue which should be referred to the civil court for redress. This is reflected on page 2 of the arbitral award, wherein is stated:

“Respondent argued that if claimant is not happy with the payment pattern, he should approach the civil court for redress and not labour arbitration. Respondent did not therefore see any need for the Tribunal to hear the matter.”

The payment of terminal benefits upon termination of employment is undoubtedly a labour issue, provided for in section 13 (1) of the Act. This provision reads:

“13	Wages and benefits upon termination of employment

Subject to this Act or any regulations made in terms of this Act, whether any person—

is dismissed from his employment or his employment is otherwise terminated; or

resigns from his employment; or

is incapacitated from performing his work; or

dies;

he or his estate, as the case may be, shall be entitled to the wages and benefits due to him up to the time of such dismissal, termination, resignation, incapacitation or death, as the case may be, including benefits with respect to any outstanding vacation and notice period, medical aid, social security and any pension, and the employer concerned shall pay such entitlements to such person or his estate, as the case may be, as soon as reasonably practicable after such event, and failure to do so shall constitute an unfair labour practice.”

In the light of this, the appellant’s contention, as I have understood it in his terse grounds of appeal, that the dispute is an acknowledgement of debt in respect of which the arbitrator had no jurisdiction, cannot be upheld. This was clearly a labour dispute that fell within the purview of disputes a labour officer, and by extension an arbitrator to whom the dispute is referred, can deal with.

There was therefore no basis for this appeal. The arbitrator cannot be faulted for the order that he made.

In the result, it is ordered that:

The appeal be and is hereby dismissed.

The arbitral award granted in favour of the respondent on 20 October 2014 be and is hereby upheld.

The appellant shall bear the respondent’s costs.