admin
Tapiwanashe Mangwiro-Senior Business Reporter
NMB Zimbabwe (NMBZ) has filed an appeal at the Supreme Court against a Labour Court judgement directing it to reinstate 26 employees the banking group retrenched two years ago.
The bank is seeking to have the Labour Court’s ruling set aside by the Supreme Court as it argues that it acted within the confines of the law in executing the retrenchments.
The banking industry National Employment Council (NEC) first made the determination for the workers to be reinstated. In response, NMB filed an appeal at the Labour Court, which was thrown out by Justice Godfrey Musariri.
The court upheld the NEC decision for workers to be reinstated, after an arbitrator ruled in their favour.
Alternatively, NMB was directed damages in lieu of reinstatement.
Through its head of human capital Pamela Chinhoyi, the bank has given notice to appeal at the Supreme Court, saying Justice Musariri erred in his ruling.
The bank argues that it procedurally terminated the workers’ contracts back in October 2020 and they were compensated on three months’ notice calculated as one months’ basic gross salary plus hardship allowance for every year served upto the day of termination of contract.
Ms Chinhoyi said despite that, the employees approached the NEC in terms of section 63 (A) of the Labour Act seeking their reinstatement to their positions without loss of salary and benefits.
The bank also argued that the affected employees had accepted the termination of contracts and packages hence waived their right to challenge the retrenchment process.
However, the employees through their spokesperson Ashton Kupara argue that their retrenchment was unlawful.
Mr Kupara said, “For the avoidance of doubt and despite the vagueness of the grounds of appeal, respondents categorically deny that the designated agent erred at law in not finding the terminations to be lawful.
“This ground of appeal lacks merit and ought to be dismissed.
“The undisputed fact in this matter is that the appellant unilaterally decided to terminate respondents’ contracts of employment on three months’ notice. Such manner of termination is not provided for in the Act and particularly in section 12(4a) of the Labour Act, said one in a response filed on behalf of his colleagues,” Mr Kupara added.
The NEC determined that NMBZ failed to prove that the method of termination it used was sanctioned by law or by agreement as the employees claimed they were never given an opportunity to challenge the terminations as they were based on a unilateral decision where no consultations or opportunity to challenge the decision was given.
Online Reporter