Trampling of workers’ rights unacceptable

how to reverse it or take measures to prevent any further erosion. At the workplace, it is possible for one’s rights to be eroded until a perception is got that an employer is violating the rules of the game.
The possible consequence of erosion of a worker’s rights is loss of employment with the attendant results of being humiliated in front of both management and fellow workers.
The experience can be traumatic.
Unlike erosion where the people concerned can get soil and repair the broken land and move on – and probably earn an income from the repaired land – the time lost during the process of erosion of workers’ rights can never be recovered.
Neither is it possible to recapture the moments of extreme humiliation and correct them. Unfortunately, this is usually found within the ordinary course of employment. For example Mr Pius Nago was employed by Pungwe Breweries and Marketing in Mutare as a buyer with effect from January 1, 2008.
He reported directly to the brewery manager. On October 1, 2009 Pungwe Breweries wrote Mr Nago appointing him as a sales clerk, and he would now report to the operations control officer.
The post of sales clerk appeared to be lower than that of buyer because firstly, if it had been a promotion, the letter would have added rather than subtract the entitlements of Mr Nago.
Highlights of the remuneration package did not have a cellphone allowance, which was part of the benefit for his original post. Mr Nago was no longer reporting to the brewery manager and there were no indications that the employer had discussed this move with him.
On January 26, 2010, Pungwe appointed him as an acting barman. The letter of appointment said in part that since the new position was below his current grade, he would continue to enjoy his current salary and benefits.
Mr Nago responded saying that he could not handle that position because clearly this was a demotion.
Within a period of three months (from October 1 2009 to January 26, 2010) he had been demoted twice, and each time he was not given the chance to comment on his appointment or demotion.
On February 15, 2010 Pungwe wrote to Mr Nago referring to its letter for the position of Sales Clerk which he turned down. The company advised him that the position of Buyer he held was abolished.
It also noted that he had refused to take up the post of Acting Barman. Since Mr Nago was idle, Pungwe had no option but to place him on redundancy. Management was working out his exit package in line with statutory provisions and the organisation’s ability to pay.
However, on April 21, 2010 Pungwe once again offered Mr Nago the position of Sales Clerk, automatically rescinding its offer to lay him off.
Surprisingly, two days later on April 23, Mr Nago was suspended from work pending investigations into acts of misconduct.
He was invited to attend a disciplinary hearing on April 26 for willful disobedience to a lawful order given by the immediate supervisor or any such senior official provided the instruction is related to one’s duties in the operation of the company.
Mr Nago was found guilty and fired.
His internal appeal failed and one of the findings in aggravation against him was that he insisted that he wanted his job of Buyer instead of apologising.
Mr Nago then sought recourse through the Labour Court arguing that the charge of willful disobedience in terms of the company’s code was improper, but there was refusal to sign a new contract of employment while the original contract was valid.
He also alleged victimisation.
This was a clear case of the demonstration of violation of a worker’s rights. The fact that a person is an employee does not entitle the employer to willy-nilly alter the terms of an employee’s contract of employment. The Labour Act, Chapter 28:01, lays down the obligation of both the employer and the employee in every term.
Section 6 of The Act provides for the protection of the employees’ rights to fair labour standards, and it stipulates what constitutes unfair labour practices.
Mr Nago’s case showed how at times employers trample on the rights of their workers with impunity, and also highlighted the vulnerable position of the employee.
The worker needs income, so he has to endure various forms of discomfort in order to ensure that he continues to receive an income. By any standards, the workplace under the present circumstances can become intolerable. Here is a person who has progressively been demoted without proper explanation.
Suddenly the employer decides to make him redundant. The employee is still expected to just wait until the employer decides the next move.
Talk of power and how the powerless can be at the mercy of the powerful.
It can be difficult for low key employees to assert their rights against large corporations, and one would have hoped that the Pungwe – which had a registered code of conduct – would be sensitive to the needs of its employee no matter the circumstances.
This did not appear to be so in the present matter and attempts by Pungwe to rescind its offer to lay Mr Nago off demonstrated the company’s insensitivity towards his plight.
The man had just lost his job after what was a traumatic experience and he was expected to apologise. Mr Nago argued that he did not refuse to perform his duties and that was correct.
He resisted the company’s efforts to vary the terms of his contract unilaterally. The manner in which the Pungwe Breweries treated Mr Nago clearly violated his rights and he was unfairly treated.
It makes one wonder why – when the employee sought clarification – ended facing charges of misconduct. Mr Nago performed the duties for which he was paid but was, however, not prepared to sign documents, which demoted him, and he therefore cannot be held to have refused to obey a lawful instruction, hence there was merit in the appeal.
In the result, Labour Court president Ms Euna Makamure granted the appeal with costs and interest at the prescribed rates and ordered Pungwe Breweries to reinstate Mr Nago with no loss of salary and benefits with effect from date of dismissal.
In the event that reinstatement was no longer possible, Pungwe was ordered to pay him damages as agreed between the parties in lieu of reinstatement and should the parties fail to agree, either party was free to approach the Labour Court for quantification.