Stephen Marunda v Safeguard Security

### Preamble
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE
JUDGMENT
NO LC/H/326/13
HELD AT HARARE 2ND JULY 2013
CASE NO
JUDGMENT NO LC/H/326/13
---------




IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE	      JUDGMENT NO LC/H/326/13

HELD AT HARARE 2ND JULY 2013		     CASE NO LC/H/502/12

In the matter between:-

STEPHEN MARUNDA					Appellant

And

SAFEGUARD SECURITY					Respondent

Before The Honourable E Muchawa, President

Appellant			In person

For Respondent		B.S. Nherera (Human Resource Director)

MUCHAWA, E:

This is an appeal against the decision of the Negotiating Committee of the National Employment Council for the Commercial Sectors which confirmed on appeal, an earlier dismissal verdict from employment of Appellant by the Mashonaland Local Joint Committee.

The Appellant was employed by Respondent as a security guard and at the material time he was guarding at the main gate at Afdis Southerton.  Appellant was charged for dishonesty and other related offences, in particular, theft in terms of the Code of Conduct for the Commercial Sectors.  It has alleged that he had stolen a 750 mls bottle of Amarula and another 750 mls bottle of Gilbeys Gin.  These items were allegedly found on him when being searched by colleagues on knocking off.  Appellant admitted to committing the offence as charged in a disciplinary hearing at company level on the 26th January 2011.

In his grounds of appeal, Appellant is basically refuting that he stole anything, is averring that no evidence was led at the hearing to prove that he had stolen anything.  He denies admitting that he is guilty and claims the investigations were not properly carried out.

Respondent on his part responds that due process was followed in terms of the National Employment Council for the Commercial Sectors, Code of Conduct.  They argue too, that Appellant was found guilty following his own plea of guilt and he signed the hearing minutes, thus confirming their accuracy.

This is a case which shows clearly what happens to self actors who try to deal with legal issues, with very limited knowledge of procedures, level of proof in a matter of this nature, lack of representation and the effect of appending one’s signature to a document.

Appellant made bare averrements that he did not steal the items in question and did not address himself to the particulars presented and found to be factual regarding how the theft is alleged to have happened.  This did not help explain some of the admissions he made at the initial hearing.  For instance, the record shows that he admitted to taking the two bottles from where they were stored in order to show them to his  fellow guards and that he was not denying the charges levelled against him.

Appellant seems not to be aware that the level of proof in a labour matter is “on a balance of probabilities” and not “proof beyond reasonable doubt.”

The most damaging aspect to Appellant’s matter is that he pleaded guilty at the hearing before the designated officer.  This question was put to him more than three times and in various words he pleaded guilty or said he was not denying the charges levelled against him.  In addition, he confirmed having appended his signature at the end of the minutes of the hearing thus confirming them.

In the circumstances I find that the decision of the Negotiating Committee of the National Employment Council for the Commercial Sectors cannot be impugned.  I therefore order as follows:

“The appeal being without merit it dismissed.  Each party shall bear its own costs”.