NRZ appeals against court ruling in labour dispute

Court ruling that was ordering it to put its house in order before final determination on a labour dispute with its workers.

 

In September this year, Bulawayo Labour Court president Mr Selo Nare further suspended the collective job action by NRZ workers for a period of four months pending further submissions by the parties on the resolution of occupational hazards and salary arrears issues.

In October last year, Mr Nare stayed a Show Cause Order issued by Minister of Labour and Social Services, Paurina Mpariwa, terminating a job action by NRZ workers pending the finalisation of the hearing of the case.

The NRZ management approached the Labour Court praying for a disposal order in terms of Section 107 of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01] to the effect that the collective job action terminated by Minister Mpariwa pending determination of the matter by the Labour Court be fully terminated.

The parastatal wanted the respondents to be directed to allow for ongoing initiative and imminent growth in the NRZ’s business to bear fruit.

In his judgment Mr Nare ordered the NRZ to produce proof that they have fully attended to the concerns raised by the respondents on health and safety issues.

He said such proof should be backed by reports from such independent organisations such as the National Social Security Authority which has a factories inspectorate.

He further ordered the NRZ, who were the applicants, to produce proof that it had paid outstanding union dues and medical contributions by the unions’ members.

Mr Nare said if the NRZ had not done so, they were to discuss the way forward as regards the solution to its non-remittance of outstanding contributions.

He also said the NRZ was to produce proof that it had resolved or attended to the issue of salary arrears. The parties are due to appear before Mr Nare on 10 December this year.

In their application for leave to appeal lodged by Mr Joseph James, of James, Moyo- Majwabu and Nyoni, the NRZ says Mr Nare erred in law in finding that in all the circumstances, the defence of supervening applied to the NRZ bearing in mind the tough economic conditions that Zimbabwe was facing in 2011 and which economic environment made it impossible for the parastatal to fulfil its obligations to the unions.

The unions who are the respondents in both applications are the Zimbabwe Amalgamated Railway Workers’ Union, Railway Artisan Union, Railway Association of Enginemen and the Railway Association of Yard Operating Staff.

Mr James said the court erred in ignoring the valiant efforts that the NRZ had made towards creating a safe working environment for members of the unions; remitting union subscriptions to unions; paying Railmed medical aid subscriptions and the onerous debts that the parastatal has and still continues to accrue.

“The court erred in not taking into account the joint committee established by the Railway Employment Council, which also comprised representatives of the unions, which found in its report of 13 December 2010 that the NRZ was a facing a serious liquidity crunch which militates against its operations on a daily basis leaving it with inadequate cash to pay salaries and at times to purchase consumable materials like fuel and lubricants in order to keep the NRZ wheels turning to purchase basic materials for carrying out maintenance of infrastructure, motive power, rolling stock that moves traffic to earn that needed revenue,”wrote Mr James.

He added that the honourable court erred in law in issuing an order which is brutem fulmen as the NRZ showed that it simply did not have the financial resources to meet obligations of the unions and their members.

It is Mr James’ contention that the court erred in law in finding that the remittance of insufficient unions’ dues to the unions constituted a serious threat of the existence of the unions when there was no such evidence to that effect save for a few letters of resignation proffered by the unions as evidence.

“The honourable court erred in law in making a value judgment that the working environment of the applicant (NRZ) was a death trap due to the partial remittance of dues to Railmed without the honourable court going into actual services offered by Railmed at the relevant time,” said Mr James.

The matter is yet to be set down for hearing.