Court upholds teller’s dismissal

two friends.
Brian Chibwana was employed by the bank at its Mutare branch.
On April 16, 2007, the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe issued a directive increasing the withdrawal limit from Z$50 000 to Z$1,5 million and all banks were obliged to adhere to the limit. However, Chibwana violated the directive and exceeded the limit in respect of two customers, Thomas Bunya and Shiridzinomwa Iyanai.
Chibwana deliberately used a wrong menu to exceed the authorised limits as the correct menu would have rejected the transactions.
As a result, he was charged with willful disobedience to lawful order given by the employer and falsification of records.
Chibwana appeared before a hearing officer who found him guilty and ordered his dismissal.
He appealed to the grievances and disciplinary committee that was deadlocked and the matter was referred to the appeals board, which ruled in favour of Chibwana.
It felt that the penalty of dismissal was too harsh in the circumstances and substituted the dismissal with a first written warning.
Aggrieved by the ruling, Agribank then appealed to the Labour Court arguing that the appeals board erred and misdirected itself by levelling new charges against Chibwana, who was never charged with failure to comply with standing instructions.
It further submitted that the appeals board misdirected itself by failing to uphold the dismissal penalty after acknowledging that there was enough evidence presented in the hearing warranting conviction.
Labour Court president, Ms Loice Matanda-Moyo, said it was correct that an appeals court could not substitute a charge but could only vary a conviction.
Ms Matanda-Moyo said: “Once the appeals board entertained the charge as violating RBZ instructions that indeed created new charges, which respondent (Chibwana) did not face during the hearing.
“I therefore agree with appellant’s submission that the appeals board erred in considering charges not preferred in the initial hearing.”
She pointed out that it was going to be different had the appeals board considered the correct charges but went on to find that the evidence justified conviction on a lesser offence.
Ms Matanda-Moyo said Chibwana used menus for third party and counter cheques and for other customers he used the correct menu.
“I am satisfied that the respondent was correctly convicted as he planned to commit the offence. He deliberately used other menus not meant for withdrawal to avoid detection.
“Had he used the correct menu, he knew the transactions would be rejected. I am of the view that the penalty of dismissal was warranted,” said Ms Matanda-Moyo.