adminHowever, the latest turn whereby employees have now been hit hard on their pockets due to the loss of power shows the extent of the problem since many firms are going for hours without production and yet are still expected to pay full salaries.
The Labour Court has since ruled that companies can enter into agreements to pay their workers only for the time worked.
This, the court noted, was meant to save the companies from collapse. The judgment, however, has also left room for firms that can absorb the costs to pay full salaries.
The judgment by Labour Court president Ms Loice Matanda-Moyo followed court action by an employee of Adhesive Tapes who was contesting the deduction of his salary for hours he had not worked due to power cuts.
The company argued that paying workers for just being at work without production was not sustainable and in the case of the power cuts these were beyond the firm’s control.
However, while employers might celebrate this victory it should be pointed out that the court said as long as there was an agreement between the firm and the workers, the deductions could be effected without any breach of law. This means workers’ representatives and management would have to craft measures of dealing with the power cuts that safeguard jobs and also ensure continued production.
We believe that if the Zimbabwe Electricity Supply Authority could stick to their load shedding timetables, companies could work around these and be able to adjust their shifts, especially industrial firms.
Losing an average of two hours a day in a five-day week adds up to 10 hours a week and 40 hours (or five working days) in a month. This would mean that some companies are being forced to pay for five extra days every month even though there was no production at that time. These are difficult times indeed and some, especially in the retail sector and larger firms that can afford, have invested in electricity generators to reduce disruptions in the event of a power cut. However, running a generator can be very costly and this builds up costs making local products much more expensive than imported ones.
It is our view that interpretation of law in cases of disputes is meant to bring clarity and resolve matters and hence companies should not use this to deny workers what is rightfully theirs.
It is incumbent upon both employers and employees to work out arrangements that suit them best to compensate for the time lost through working overtime or deducting the non-productive hours so that neither party is prejudiced.
The cost of load shedding to the whole economy should be scary considering that loss of power affects industry, commerce as well as the Government offices that in most cases play a facilitator role in business.
The only positive that arises from the labour disputes due to load shedding is that the case will bring to the fore issues of productivity and how this should be linked to the reward system. It is important that workers are not paid for hours they spend at their work stations but for actual work since it is their production that will pay their salaries ultimately.
We have seen firms sacrificing a lot and coming up with arrangements with workers to reduce working days all in an effort to save jobs. It is our hope that employees will also exercise flexibility and work outside their conventional hours in order to keep their companies afloat and hence keep their jobs. As the Labour Court ruling put it, a legally acceptable balance should be struck between the two competing interests.
Online Reporter