Factory sold for $900

Cletus Mushanawani News Editor
IN an act of shooting themselves in the foot, five employees employed by one of Mutare’s leading dry cleaners, Perrems Dry Cleaners, connived to have the company’s property auctioned for a paltry $900. The employees — Lovemore Ngoma, Edgar Tuzuka, Richard Chifamata, Fungai Makina and Lloyd Madziro — dragged their employer to an arbitrator demanding $33 644 being an amount towards wages from September 2013 to September 2014.

The five, who were self actors and Perrems Dry Cleaners which was being represented by Mr Hugo Tanaya from Mugadza, Chinzamba and Partners, appeared before an arbitrator, Mr G. M. Chibaya, who ruled in favour of the employees.

In his ruling, Mr Chibaya said: “Perrems Dry Cleaners be and hereby is ordered to pay a total of $6 163.50 to Fungai Makina and four others in three monthly instalments effective October 30, 2014.”

Makina was supposed to be paid $1 088.50, Ngoma $1 213.50, Madziro $1 075.50, Chifamata $1 127 and Tuzuka $1 659.
At one time their employer and former Mutare mayor, Mr Enock Msabaeka, opted for a settlement and offered them $15 000, but the employees remained adamant that the company’s equipment should go under the hammer. Having failed to find common ground and being buoyed by the arbitrator’s ruling, the employees caused the attachment of Perrems Dry Cleaners’ equipment in downtown Mutare.

An auction was held at the factory through the Messenger of Court, Mr Agrippa Dzobo, and the employees were in for a rude awakening after a paltry $986 was raised from the auctioning of the dry-cleaning equipment. The amount was less than any one of the employees was awarded by the arbitrator.

To add insult to injury, the employees are now staring a lawsuit in their face after their former employer won the case on appeal to the Labour Court. Although the actual value of the disposed property was not readily available at the time of going to Press, the employees were reported to be facing a $60 000 lawsuit.

In his ruling under Case Number LC/MC/43/2014 made on October 10, 2014, Labour Court judge Justice Murasi set aside the arbitrator’s award.

“The arbitrator erred at law in holding that underpayment of wages is a continuing labour practice and as such no subject to prescription in terms of the Act.

“The arbitrator erred in holding that special measures to avoid retrenchment cannot be reviewed after a period of 12 months by following the usual application process contemplated in Section 12D of the Labour Act. The arbitrator misdirected himself as failing to decide whether or not the appellant and the respondents had mutually agreed, with the blessings of the NEC to indefinitely enforce measures to avoid retrenchment.

“The arbitrator erred in granting an award which is contrary to public policy in that it would effectively lead to the closure of the appellant to the detriment of the beneficiaries of its existence in the national economy,” ruled Justice Murasi.

He said the courts were not at large to avoid the clear and unambiguous language of an Act of Parliament.
“This brings me to the issue of the order of payments awarded by the arbitrator. Section 12D (4) clearly provides that during the implementation of these measures the employees are entitled to be paid for the hours “actually worked”. The arbitrator awarded payments to respondents for work not done. This amounted to unjust enrichment. The respondents were not entitled to receive such payments,” he said.
The employees were not readily available for comment, but Mr Tanaya blamed the employees for inflicting their own woes.

“The employees shot themselves in the foot because they caused the auctioning of the equipment they were using to earn a living, but now they failed to realise anything from their disposal. If they had allowed the company to continue operating, we could not have reached this point where the employees now face a lawsuit.

“The equipment worth about $60 000 was auctioned for a paltry $1 000. At one stage we opted to have the issue solved amicably, but they insisted in taking the auction route. We wish they could have listened to proper advice, but they opted to get advice from wrong people,” said Mr Tanaya.