admin
The respondents in the application are the four workers’ unions — the Zimbabwe Amalgamated Railway Workers’ Union, Railway Artisan Union, Railway Association of Enginemen and the Railway Association of Yard Operating Staff.
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.
Such proof should be backed by reports from such independent organisations as the National Social Security Authority or officials from the Factories Inspectorate to the effect that the health and safety concerns have been attended to.
“Applicant (NRZ) is ordered to produce proof that it has paid outstanding union dues and medical contributions by the respondent’s members. If not the applicant and the respondents are ordered to discuss the way forward as regards the solution to its non-remittance of the outstanding contributions.
“Applicant should produce proof that he has resolved or attended to the issue of salary arrears,” reads the judgment.
Mr Nare ordered the parties to appear before the Labour Court on 10 December 2012 at 9 am for report back and further submissions on the issues raised.
Each party is to pay its costs.
In their notice to resort to collective job action dated 31 August 2011, the unions stated that they had “noticed a trend whereby the employer is continuously and relentlessly violating Collective Bargaining Agreements”.
The unions also raised concerns over issues of health and safety and threat to their existence.
In response, the NRZ applied for a Show Cause Order from Minister Mpariwa on 8 September the same year.
The Show Cause Order was eventually issued on 30 September subsequent to members of the trade unions having engaged in a collective job action from 27 to 30 September.
A conciliation hearing was held before a provincial labour officer in Bulawayo on 27 and 28 September during which the trade unions justified the strike action on NRZ’s failure to pay employees’ salaries in full and on time, remit medical aid deductions in full in respect of Railmed and the NRZ in-house medical schemes.
They also accused the NRZ of failing to fully address occupational health and safety hazards, which posed a threat to the health and safety of their members as well as their existence as trade unions.
After the hearing opened before Mr Nare on 10 October 2011, and on the realisation that the matter would take long to conclude, Mr Nare issued a provisional order to the effect that the respondents should not engage in collective job action and that the NRZ should not dismiss any workers who had engaged in the collective job action until the conclusion and determination of the inquiry.
In his ruling, Mr Nare found that the evidence before the court established that the respondents acted within the law and in terms of the provisions of Section 104 (a) (b) of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01].
“I find respondents had a right to lawful collective job action in order to avoid occupational hazards for which they feared would cause an immediate threat to their health and safety.
“I also find that the respondents had a right in terms of the law to resort to collective job action in defence of the real threat to the existence of their registered unions,” said Mr Nare.
The Labour Court president found that the respondents’ rights are protected in terms of Section 108 of the Labour Act.
Mr Misheck Matanhire, the NRZ Legal and Corporate Affairs Manager represented the applicant while Mr Jonathan Tsvangirai, of Dube- Tachiona and Tsvangirai Legal Practitioners represented the respondents.
Bongani Ndlovu