Pilot sues Airzim for US$76 000

February 2009.
Last year, it declared a dispute when it sought to reduce pilots’ salaries.
The airline argued that the salaries it had earlier agreed to pay them under duress in 2003 were no longer viable.
The matter was referred to an arbitrator who ruled in favour of the company.
He invalidated an agreement of 2003 for higher salaries. That prompted the workers to file an appeal at the Labour Court against the arbitration award.
The appeal is still pending.
Capt Khan, through his lawyers Coghlan, Welsh and Guest, argues that he was only employed in 2006 when higher salaries were being offered and that he was unaware of the 2003 agreement. He contends that he accepted the employment offer at Airzim on the basis of the higher salaries that were being offered and that those salaries were not affected by the arbitration award. Subsequent to the ruling, Capt Kahn claims that Airzim issued a schedule showing it owed the pilot US$76 649.
The pilot also claims that Airzim human resources office acknowledged that it owed him that much.
Capt Khan further argues that his matter was no longer a labour issue but simply a debt collection of unpaid salaries.
He argues that the High Court has jurisdiction to hear the matter.
Airzim lawyers Mutumbwa, Mugabe and Partners filed opposing papers at the High Court.
The company argues that the contract between Capt Khan and Airzim was premised on the agreement of 2003, which was invalidated last year by the arbitrator.
The airline also argues that it failed to charge viable fares for its services due to relevant statutory instruments. An application for exemption from the statutes in question and to charge viable fares was turned down by the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe. The company also denies ever generating the schedule confirming it owed Capt Khan.
Airzim also denies owing the pilot as alleged.