Norman Nzombe v Concorde Clothing

### Preamble
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE
JUDGMENT
LC/H/55/13
HELD AT HARARE ON 21 FEBRUARY 2013
CASE NO.
---------




IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE		JUDGMENT LC/H/55/13

HELD AT HARARE ON 21 FEBRUARY 2013		CASE NO. LC/H/108A/12

In the matter between:

NORMAN NZOMBE							Appellant

And

CONCORDE CLOTHING						Respondent

Before the Honourable President, E.F. Ndewere

For Appellant				Mr L. Katsiga (Trade Unionist)

For Respondent				Mr G. Sumani (Factory Manager)

NDEWERE E.F

The Appellant was employed by Concorde Clothing (1975).  On 6 September, 2011, the Chief Executive Officer of Concorde, Mr Patel was doing his routine visit of the operations at Bonar Industries and he saw the Appellant sitted while his colleagues were working.  The Chief Executive Officer asked him why he was not working; the Appellant did not respond; he remained sitted.  After a moment, he stood up, put his hands in his pocket and walked away without saying anything.

The Chief Executive Officer wrote a memorandum to the Managing Director, indicating what had transpired and asking him to investigate the incident.

Thereafter, the Factory Manager, Mr G. Sumani, wrote to the Appellant on the same day asking him to give a written report about his encounter with the Chief Executive Officer.  The Appellant was given up to end of the day of 7 September, 2011 to submit his report.  The Appellant’s response was that the Chief Executive officer himself should do the writing and give him the report to sign.  On 13 September, 2011, Mr S. Dohwe from Furniture Warehouse wrote another letter to the Appellant, asking him once more to write a report concerning his encounter with the Chief Executive Officer.  The Appellant replied, on the same day, reiterating that the Chief Executive Officer should do the writing and he will sign.

Thereafter and still on 13 September 2011 Management completed a warning form in terms of the Code of Conduct and suspended the Appellant without pay pending dismissal.  The Appellant refused to sign the warning form.  Management then referred the matter to the Disciplinary Committee for a hearing.  The hearing was held on 26 September, 2011

The Committee found the Appellant guilty and said he should be dismissed.  On 27 September, 2011, the Appellant appealed against the dismissal to the Company Arbitrator who upheld the dismissal.  The Appellant then appealed to the Labour Court.

The Appellant does not dispute that Mr Patel saw him sitted; later asked for a report through his Senior and that he did not write that report. The thrust of his defence through his Union was about his other grievances with the company which he said were the background to this case.  The Court indicated that the current case was about willful disobedience to a lawful order and the issues simply were; was there an order from a superior? Was it lawful? Was the order complied with or not?  If the order was not complied with then there is a case against the Appellant.

The Appellant, through the Union eventually conceded that the order to write a report explaining the encounter with the Chief Executive Officer was not complied with.

That being the case, the Court has no option but to dismiss the appeal and uphold the Appellant’s dismissal from his job.  Each party will pay its own costs.

E.F. NDEWERE

PRESIDENT

NATIONAL UNION OF THE CLOTHING INDUSTRY – APPELLANT’S REPRESENTATIVE