TPZ ordered to reinstate seasonal workers

not engaged for the 2009 season.
They then raised a complaint with the National Employment Council for the tobacco industry, which ruled in their favour. This was on the basis that the seasonal workers had a legitimate expectation to be re-engaged.
As a remedy, the NEC ordered that they be given preference in engagement for the 2010 season.
In addition, TPZ was ordered to pay each of them the equivalent of three months pay as compensation.
TPZ then filed an application in the Labour Court for a review of the matter.
Meanwhile, the workers filed another complaint with a Labour Officer based on TPZ’s failure to comply with the NEC’s determination.
The matter was referred to an Arbitrator, who made an award, which basically endorsed the NEC’s determination. TPZ also filed an appeal against the arbitral award with the Labour Court.
With consent of both parties, the appeal and review were consolidated as one case. TPZ argued that the NEC did not have authority to deal with the matter. It further argued that the workers’ contracts expired at the end of the 2008 season and accordingly could not raise grievances with the NEC.
Labour Court president Mr Godfrey Musariri ruled that the NEC was empowered to deal with grievances.
Said Mr Musariri: “Such are defined as a complaint or dissatisfaction by an employee about conditions of employment.”
He pointed out that the employees were understood to be TPZ’s seasonal employees and they did not cease to be employees just because the season ended. Mr Musariri said that theirs was like a permanent employment contract, which was operational on a seasonal basis.
“As such, they could legitimately file complaints with the NEC like all other employees in the industry,” said Mr Musariri.
“To hold otherwise would be both unfair and even absurd. Unfair because all citizens — including employees — have a right to access courts or quasi judicial tribunals to air their grievances.”
He then dismissed the appeal and application by TPZ with costs.