MBCA bank clerk reinstated

failing to disclose material information in relation to circumstances under which he left his previous employer.
Chengetai Guta was dismissed after being convicted for “falsification of records or any document whether of a personal nature or otherwise.”
It was alleged that during the selection interview on May 6, 2005, Guta was questioned about his employment history.
He alluded to the fact that he left Finhold after being laid off when in actual fact his contract was terminated when it was discovered that he was involved in fraudulent activities.
The charge came to light as a result of a reference check MBCA Bank carried out with Finhold sometime after Guta had already been employed.
The reference check letter dated January 10 2006 read: “This serves to confirm that Mr Chengetai Guta was employed on a contract as a clerk at Zimbank (now ZB Bank) from January 23, 2004 to September 22, 2004.
“His contract was terminated after he fraudulently altered taxi invoices resulting in Zimbank being prejudiced of Z$806 600.”
Labour Court senior president Ms Gladys Mhuri noted that at the pre-employment interviews on May 6, 2005, it was not known what questions were asked by the panelists.
Ms Mhuri said: “The document submitted by respondent (MBCA) are silent on this. No minutes were submitted to show what kind of questions were asked.
“The minutes would show whether questions were asked as to how appellant left Finhold and his responses thereto.”
During the entire proceedings, MBCA did not call any witnesses from the panelist who interviewed Guta to substantiate its averment.
In his application, Guta had listed down two referees from Finhold.
On May 9, 2005 through a memo MBCA’s human resources department sought assistance from the risk management department to conduct background search on Guta.
This was in compliance with the terms and conditions as contained in the offer of employment letter acknowledged by appellant.
It was clear from the record that as a result of the request, calls were made to two of the referees and their responses were captured and handwritten.
This was captured: “Spoke to Mrs Kadzviti (Finhold supervisor deposits section) who advised that Mr Guta was good but his contract was terminated as he was a temporary employee.”
Ms Mhuri said it followed therefore that without knowing what was asked in the pre-employment interviews it was difficult to say appellant (Guta) falsified documents.
She then ordered that MBCA reinstates Guta to his original position without loss of salary and benefits with effect from date of dismissal.