Zifa lose Mhurushomana dispute

retrenched in 2004 and, for the past eight years, has been battling unsuccessfully to have his severance package paid by the football controlling body.
Affectionately known as DeMbare, and widely regarded as one of the finest football administrators during his time at 53 Livingstone Avenue, Mhurushomana has been fighting a lonely battle to get what he feels belongs to him.
After the two parties failed to agree on a suitable retrenchment package, Mhurushomana cited unfair labour practice, and the matter was referred for arbitration.
Arbitrator, T.R. Madzimure, ordered that Zifa pay Mhurushomana his salary and benefits, from March 2004, until agreement was reached on the retrenchment package that would be paid for the final divorce.
On June 29, 2010, arbitrator, A.J. Mahaso, ordered Zifa to pay Mhurushomana a total package of US$35 420.
The dispute spilled into the Labour Court and with Zifa, represented by its lawyer Ralph Maganga, challenging the order for the association to pay the package and arguing that the arbitrator had not only grossly erred but had also seriously misdirected himself on a point in law.
Zifa wanted the Labour Court to set aside the arbitrator’s order and substitute it with an appropriate one.
The country’s football controlling body questioned Mhurushomana’s claims that he was the director of administration at Zifa, at the time of the retrenchment, claiming that he was basing his assumptions on unsigned letters of employment or promotion. Zifa also questioned Mhurushomana’s claims that he was entitled to a salary of US$1 500 a month.
Labour Court president, Betty Chidziva, last Friday threw out the Zifa appeal, with costs.
“This court is of the view that there was no misdirection on the part of the arbitrator where he found that the respondent (Mhurushomana) was employed as the director of administration because there was no evidence to prove otherwise,” reads the judgment. It was also the respondent’s submission that he had conducted his research and found out that an employee of his position was earning US$1 500. Appellant could not adduce any evidence to the contrary.
“In the circumstances, therefore, this court finds that the actual findings were reasonable and there was no misdirection on the part of the arbitrator.”
The Labour Court president said what had to be decided, in this dispute, was whether:
Respondent was employed as a director of administration or not
The arbitrator’s decision was so grossly unreasonable that it amounts to a point in law.
“To start with, the appellant (Zifa) did not produce the contract of employment that shows the capacity in which respondent was employed by appellant,” read the judgment.
“However, in the letter purportedly written by V. Pamire (former Zifa chairman), dated 17 November 2003, it is clearly shown that respondent was appointed as the director of administration.
“Furthermore, in another letter written by E.J Rogers, the (former Zifa) chief executive officer on the 13th of February 2004 for the severance package, respondent was addressed as director of administration. The appellant has not produced any contrary evidence to disprove respondent’s claim that he was employed as a director of administration.
“Furthermore, for all this time, i.e, during the previous hearings, the appellant never raised the issue about the respondent’s post. There are no submissions on record to show that respondent was never employed as the director of administration.”
Mhurushomana was represented by Harare lawyer, Fred Gijima, of Gijima and Associates Legal Practitioners.
Zifa, through their lawyer Maganga, had based their appeal on that:
The Hon. Arbitrator grossly erred and seriously misdirected himself on a point in law in holding that the respondent had been employed as a director of administration of the appellant.
l The arbitrator erred and misdirected himself on a point in law in holding in the following manner
(a)That respondent was entitled to a monthly salary of US$1 500 without any legal basis for that finding
(b)That respondent was entitled to a cellphone allowance of US$200 a month and 40 litres of fuel per week without considering the multi-currency system.
l The arbitrator’s finding of fact are so outrageous and unreasonable as to amount to a misdirection of law. The findings are devoid of merit and have no legal foundation.
Murushomana opposed the appeal and told the court that the arbitrator did not err at law in holding that he was the director of administration and that he was entitled to a monthly salary of US$1 500 and allowances of US$200 a month and 40 litres of fuel per week.