Chronicle Editor
Labour Matters, Davies Ndumiso Sibanda
WORKERS can go on collective job action in defence of the existence of the workers committee. However, many employers out of ignorance of the law will try to block the formation of the workers committee and in worse instances dismiss those who try to form a workers committee.
Section 23 of the Labour Act Chapter 28:01 provides for the formation of two types of workers committees and these are the non-managerial workers committee, which is the most common one in organisations and the managerial workers committee, which is less common but the last few years have seen an increase in the number of managerial workers committees in organisations.
Most employers have no problem with the formation of non-managerial workers committee but are very uncomfortable with the formation of a managerial workers committee.
This is mainly caused by the fact that they have not been trained in labour relations in labour law in order to appreciate the immense value that can be added by the workers committee towards meeting organisation goals and productivity improvement.
Where managers fear the formation of any type of workers committee or managers work vigorously to prevent the formation of a workers committee or to destroy it, that is a sign of an organisation that needs help in understanding the role of the workers committee and how to utilise it to add value.
There are cases where employers have made attempts to block the formation of the workers committee and workers have resisted by going on collective job action to protect the existence of the workers committee as provided for in section 104 (4)(b) of the Labour Act. We find dicta in the case FIRST MUTUAL LIFE ASSURANCE V MUZIVI – SC 62/2003.
The case in brief was that managerial employees formed a managerial workers committee, which the employer objected to resulting in the dispute going to the Labour Court the employer downgraded employees to non-managerial grades resulting in workers going on strike in defence of the workers committee.
The employer dismissed the workers but was ordered to reinstate them. When the matter got to the Supreme Court it said: “On this basis the appellant’s submission that the managerial workers’ committee was, I will now turn to the issue of whether the collective job action was in defence of immediate threats to a workers committee. When the appellant was advised of the formation of the management workers committee it disputed the eligibility for appointment of some of the members of the interim executive committee on the basis that the members were not managerial employees. The appellant as previously stated, referred this dispute to the Labour Relations Officer.
“The Labour Relations Officer correctly referred the matter to the Labour Tribunal but erroneously suspended the activities of the interim executive committee. Before the matter was resolved by the Labour Tribunal the appellant embarked on a restructuring exercise whose net effect was to render members of the interim executive of the managerial workers committee, non-managerial employees.
“The direct consequence of the appellant’s conduct in this regard was to abolish the managerial workers committee by rendering all its members disqualified for appointment or election to that workers committee.
This conduct of the appellant is more than a threat to the managerial workers committee. It is an actual and direct attack on the existence of the managerial workers committee. It is quite apparent from this conduct and the subsequent conduct of the appellant that it wished to prevent the formation of the management workers committee. It is difficult to imagine a greater and more imminent threat to the managerial workers committee than this.”
In conclusion, employers should be alive to rights of employees as far as formation of workers committee is concerned and unleash the energy of the workers committees instead of fighting it.
– Davies Ndumiso Sibanda can be contacted on: email: [email protected]
Online Reporter