admin
Fidelis Munyoro Chief Court Reporter—
Zimbabwe Platinum Mines has been taken to court by 15 of its workers after it terminated retrenchment proceedings that were already under way and fired them on three months’ notice. Zimplats’ action to abandon the retrenchment route was inspired by the July 17 Supreme Court ruling in which two former Zuva Petroleum workers, Don Nyamande and Kingstone Donga, were challenging their dismissal.
The landmark ruling allowed companies to terminate contracts of employment on three months notice without compensation for job losses.
After the ruling, Zimplats withdrew its application for retrenchment and terminated employment contracts on notice in respect of all the intended retrenchees.
Some of the retrenchees had already negotiated and settled their retrenchment packages with the company.
In their application filed at the Constitutional Court, the 15 workers argued that Zimplats improperly placed reliance on the judgement of the Supreme Court in the Zuva Petroleum matter.
Through their lawyer Mr Douglas Chinawa of Chinawa Law Chambers, the workers want the court to stop Zimplats from terminating their contracts on notice.
They are arguing that the retrenchment process was already under way when the Supreme Court judgment was made.
“The notice cannot be valid for many reasons key of which is that the parties’ contract limit the grounds in terms of which the respondent can terminate on notice,” argued Clarence Mpala, who deposed an affidavit on behalf of the 15.
“The notice does not either impliedly or expressly purport to be made in terms of any of the contractual grounds for notice. This compromises its validity.”
Mr Mpala said barely a week after writing to the retrenchment board seeking to expedite the hearing and resolution of the outstanding issues of the retrenchment process, Zimplats served the 15 workers with three month notices of termination of employment.
“The fate and consequences of such employment was still pending before the retrenchment board,” he argued. “This, I am advised is a gross irregularity that renders the so-called terminations a nullity at law.”
Mr Mpala argued that Zimplats had no basis to arbitrarily violate the retrenches’ rights and freedoms without compensation.
Zimplats, which is being represented by Advocate Thabani Mpofu, argues that the application is defective and improperly brought to the Constitutional Court.
Zimplats human resources executive Mr Takawira Maswiswi, in an affidavit opposing the application, said the company terminated the contracts of employment in terms of the law.
He contends that in terms of the law as articulated in the Zuva Petroleum case, there are various methods of termination of an employment contract.
“Termination on notice is one such lawful method,” he said. “The termination on notice method is provided for in both the common law and statute.”
In this case, Zimplats contends that an exercise of that method could not be impugned on constitutional grounds, unless both the common law and statute have been challenged.
Online Reporter