Poor mechanic/technician performance vs dismissal

performance of the mechanic or technician.
Firstly, we want to take a look at the poor work done by a mechanic which resulted in the matter being referred to court for the compensation by the vehicle owner.
We also want to look at the sacking of the mechanic in question by the garage owner and the challenges that emerged due to the conflict arising from difference between the code of conduct versus the a main labour act.
We believe there is an apparent conflict in terms of the interpretation of the Labour Act and certain provisions of the Collective Bargaining agreements that we believe could be at variance with the main Act.
In the case study we are looking at, a bus broke down in Victoria Falls due to overheating and this resulted in the blowing up of the head cylinder gasket.
It was towed to the garage where upon inspection the garage recommended that an engine overhaul be done.
A quotation was subsequently done and the owners of the bus authorised the garage to carry out the overhaul.
A motor mechanic was assigned to work on the bus and it was released to the owner after a few days.
However the bus broke down after travelling for 500 kilometres after this handover.
Since it was within the warranty period it was brought back to the garage. It was discovered that the mechanic never changed the gasket and reused the same one.
The manufactures handbook will always indicate that parts such as gaskets and seals among other should not to be reused in the event of an overhaul.
After it was repaired the bus travelled for two months and broke down again and it was brought back to the garage.
The garage owners claimed negligence on the part of the bus owner. However the bus owner approached the franchise holder of his bus.
Upon their investigations the franchise holders found out that the garage had done an improper job.
It was discovered that although the gasket had been replaced, the thickness of the gasket used was not the ideal one.
Generally in this particular type of the bus there are five cutout (identification or mark numbers of gaskets being 1 to 5 usually fitted by the manufactures and yet only three are supplied as parts by suppliers of this type of gaskets.
Therefore the mechanic did not select any of the three which he had to match with the thickness of cylinder head gasket cutout to establish the correct type.
The cutout number 1 ranges between 0.851.05mm, cutout number 3 ranges from 0.951.05mm and cutout number 5 which ranges between 1.05 to 1.15mm.
The mechanic should have measured the piston protrusion and then selected an appropriate gasket size this he did not do.
As you can see the difference in size of these gaskets and yet he never replaced the old one which caused the overheating again in this second instance.
This brought the competence of the mechanic into question. There is a general tendency of employing people who are not qualified to do the job and yet most manufactures insist on people trained to work on their vehicles.
We believe in the case above the basic steps that should have been taken by the mechanic should have been to check the piston protrusion and then selected the head cylinder gasket as already explain herein above.
There is need to establish where the piston head protruded mostly by slowly turning the crankshaft clockwise and counterclockwise.
If the piston was not specified the mechanic should have removed the piston and connecting rod assembly and reinstall it.
The owners decided to approach the courts for compensation since the problem was recurring.
After further communication both parties agreed on an out of court settlement and in the end the garage had to compensate the client for the problem created.
That is how the first problem was resolved. Thereafter the garage took steps to enforce the disciplinary measures.
The mechanic was sent for a disciplinary hearing and was found guilty and issued with a written warning since it was his first offence. The charge was valid for 3 months (90 days).
Within this period the mechanic carried out a similar offence and caused unnecessary damage to another client’s car.
Another disciplinary hearing was done and he was given a second written warning that was valid for 12 months, which translates to 365 days.
Our concern is that the Labour Act chapter 28:01 stipulate on section 94 on prescription that a period in which to execute a claim is within the stated time frame and that beyond that time limit one cannot pursue their claim.
Lets then look at the above scenario firstly the mechanic was given 90 days warning and a further 365 days which gives a span of 445 days
Therefore in terms of the CBA agreement you can still proceed to fire the mechanic for further action but in terms of the Labour law you cannot now fire him because of time expiry.
This we mention because the mechanic can easily rely on prescription. It is our belief that we all understand the implications and reconcile the two acts so as to save time and money that you fire an employee only to be told to reinstate him.
At Obel believe there is need to revisit the about 45 NEC code of conduct which are not compatible with the main act.
Let’s meet again for more tit bits; we enjoyed the level of participation and enthusiasms shown at our stand at the Traffic Safety Launch at the rainbow Towers on 11 April, 2011.
l Contact us on above numbers or through G. Mbeya on 0774 215 505.
PROUDLY ZIMBABWEAN.