Firm ordered to reinstate 296 workers

varied from three to 10 years, and some of the companies were in the Export Processing Zone.
In December 2005, LFZ terminated the workers’ contracts, but the workers then claimed to be permanent employees.
The matter was taken to an arbitrator to determine whether the workers were on contracts without limit of time on completion of six weeks in four consecutive months.
The arbitrator was also to determine whether those contracts were unlawfully terminated.
He found out that all employees that were engaged on weekly contracts for more than six weeks in the four consecutive months became employees on contracts without limit of time.
The arbitrator said in the event that reinstatement was no longer possible, the workers were to be paid damages in lieu of reinstatement.
Aggrieved by the ruling, LZF then appealed to the Labour Court arguing that it was entitled to terminate the contracts as they were for fixed terms.
It also argued that it was entitled to give one day’s notice of the intention to terminate the contracts.
Labour Court president Mr Custom Kachambwa noted that in deciding the unlawfulness of terminating the contracts, the arbitrator sought to differentiate between casual and fixed term contract.
Mr Kachambwa said: “The reason for seeking to do so was said to be that the rights that flow from the contracts differ.
“Those rights may be different but for the purpose of the real argument before the court such differentiation was not necessary.”
He stressed that “casualisation of labour” was not referring to employees being on casual employment as such.
He said the issue was that of not placing employees on permanent employment when the work for permanent employment was available.
“The employer either places the employee on short fixed term contracts or on casual contracts.
“In the process, the employer avoids responsibilities of permanent employment at the expense of the employee,” said Mr Kachambwa.
He said that Parliament came to a position that in four months, an employer is able to give work that aggregates to six weeks or more, then there is work of a permanent nature.
The employee must then be deemed to be in a contract without limit of time or a permanent contract.
“LZF’s argument is out of context. It had to regularise the contract according to the law,” said Mr Kachambwa.
He then dismissed LZF’s appeal with costs.