Labour Court upholds dismissal

cash amounting to Z$98 850.
Gibson Manika was based at Kariba depot when events that gave rise to the offence were alleged through a stockist. He was placed on suspension on October 12, 2001 to enable investigations into the allegations and arraigned before a disciplinary committee on November 7, 2001 facing charges of substandard performance, misuse of company property and loss of company property. Manika was also alleged to have issued a receipt to a customer in Selous from a missing receipt book for Kariba but that book was never received in Kariba.
It was common cause that four receipt books had been ordered by Manika for Kariba, but only three were received.
Manika exercised his right of appeal under the code to appeal to the managing director, who dismissed the appeal and confirmed the penalty. Aggrieved by this decision, he then lodged an appeal to the Labour Court arguing that the managing director misdirected himself by concluding that he had not challenged the witness’ evidence.
He further argued that the loss of the money was not substantiated in the disciplinary hearing and the managing director failed to call for evidence of the internal auditor and his successor at Kariba Depot.
Manika also submitted that although he had authorised the requisition of the four receipt books for Kariba, the station had only received three, a practice that was not abnormal. Delta submitted that the charge had been substantiated and there was evidence in the record as well as the witness’ testimony to corroborate that evidence.
Labour Court president, Ms Beatrice Chivizhe, noted that Manika’s explanation in regards the charge clearly contradicted the evidence on record.
Ms Chivizhe said: “I am satisfied that the managing director did not misdirect himself in regards the conviction as the charge had been properly founded on the basis of the evidence.
“On the missing money, the respondent’s case was based on the fact that appellant was not following approved procedures in recording stock, cash and banking.”
There was also no reconciliation of stock while Manika collected money and no receipts were issued. Delta established through written evidence of the Zengeya stockist that Manika failed to account for the money, but his defence to the charge was that the employer should have shifted the onus to him to prove that the shortfall had been cleared.
“The appellant does not dispute that he collected money on behalf of the respondent, which he was supposed to bank. The record shows that appellant never produced proof that he banked the money, hence was correctly found guilty as the onus was clearly on him and not respondent,” said Ms Chidziva.