Reuben Mapfumo and 12 Others v Landos Farm (Pvt) Ltd t/a Peyston Trading

### Preamble
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE
JUDGMENT NO. LC/MC/46/2014
MUTARE, 26 SEPTEMBER 2014
CASE NO.
---------




IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE     JUDGMENT NO. LC/MC/46/2014

MUTARE, 26 SEPTEMBER 2014		 	   CASE NO. LC/H/1069/13

AND 10 OCTOBER 2014

In the matter between:-

REUBEN MAPFUMO AND 12 OTHERS				Appellants

And

LANDOS FARM (PVT) LTD T/A						Respondent

PEYSTON TRADING

Before Honourable L.M. Murasi, Judge

Appellants			In person (Represented by 2nd Appellant)

For Respondent		Mr. A. Maravanyika (Human Resources Manager)

MURASI, J:

At the commencement of the proceedings, 2nd Appellant informed the Court that Appellants were waiting for a Mr. Mangwende who was coming to present the matter on their behalf.  Mr. Mangwende’s motor vehicle was alleged to have broken down near Mutare.  The Court inquired from 2nd Appellant whether this Mr. Mangwende was a legal practitioner or trade unionist.  It turned out that he was neither.  The court informed 2nd Appellant that in the result Mr. Mangwende could not present their case having regard to the provisions of section 92 of the Labour Act.  Appellants thereafter made a decision to have 2nd Appellant represent them even though they were present in Court.

Appellants were employed by the Respondent in various capacities.  At one stage, Respondent instituted disciplinary proceedings against the Appellants.  Appellants reported the matter to the NEC.  Having realised that there were procedural irregularities, Respondent withdrew the disciplinary charges and wrote letters reinstating Appellants.  Appellants refused to go back to work stating that their matter was before the NEC.  The NEC failed to resolve the matter and it was referred to arbitration.  The Arbitrator gave his award on 2 December 2013 reinstating Appellants with effect from 22 July 2013 amongst other orders.  Appellants are dissatisfied and have appealed to this Court.

Appellants grounds of appeal are as follows:

The Arbitrator grossly misdirected himself by awarding the Appellants with reinstatement on condition that this will be without salary and benefits with effect from 22 July 2013.

The Arbitrator erred at law in making an award that is outside his terms of reference thereby resulting in an inappropriate remedy to the issue.

The Arbitrator grossly misdirected himself by allowing the claims for back pay and benefits to be determined by the outcome of a suggested disciplinary hearing at the Respondent’s workplace after making a finding that the absence of proper notification may infer procedural irregularity.

The Arbitrator was biased in making a doubtful finding concerning notification of a disciplinary hearing at the workplace when the evidence that was placed before him clearly showed that the notification to appear before the Respondent was not on notice to the Appellants, over and above the matter being sub judice.

The Arbitrator was merely buying the Respondent’s story and condoning the Respondent’s failure to institute proper disciplinary proceedings in terms of the Code of Conduct governing the industry thereby insisting procedural irregularities.

The Arbitrator erred by making a finding that the clarification which was done by the National Employment Council has the answer to the alleged underpayments “ in retrospect” despite the full evidence of improprieties on the part of the determining authority, the National Employment Council for the Agricultural Industry, that is clearly against public policy.

It appeared to the Court that these grounds of appeal were filed on behalf of Appellants without much discussion with them.  This was evidenced by the fact that the Court had to continuously draw 2nd Appellant’s attention to these grounds during the proceedings.  2nd Appellant dwelt on what was alleged wrong-doing by the Respondent.  This “wrong-doing” was during the pre-arbitration period.  The Court reminded the 2nd Appellant that the appeal was against the arbitral award and not what the Respondent had done prior to the arbitration.  2nd Respondent later made a concession that she did not see where Arbitrator misdirected himself.  In fact, she submitted, it was the Respondent who seemed to have incorrectly interpreted the arbitral award.

Precedent has clearly indicated that an appellate court will only interfer with the decision of a lower tribunal or court where there is evidence that the decision arrived at was so grossly unreasonable that a reasonable court would not have arrived at the same decision on the same facts.  (see HAMA vs NRZ 1996 (1) ZLR 664 (SC)).  In this case, the Arbitrator ordered the Appellants’ reinstatement with effect from 22 July 2013.  However, since the award was given in December 2013, this reinstatement was without salary and benefits.  The reasoning being that the Appellants had not worked from July 2013 to December 2013.  It would be unjust and inequitable to order the Respondent to pay for no work done.  The Arbitrator was also alive to the fact that Appellants had at one time faced disciplinary charges which Respondent had withdrawn because of procedural irregularities.  The Arbitrator’s award was that any back pay due was subject to the results of the hearing to be instituted by the Respondent.  The reinstatement did not mean that all the Appellants were innocent of the charges that Respondent had preferred against them.

The Court does not find fault in the reasoning of the Arbitrator.  The appeal clearly lacks merit.

In conclusion, the Court finds that the appeal is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.