admin
Ellina Mhlanga Sports Reporter
NELSON Matongorere has returned to haunt beleaguered ZIFA with an arbitrator ruling that disciplinary proceedings that resulted in his dismissal from his post as the association’s technical director were done by an illegal body.
Matongorere was kicked out of the association after being found guilty of improper conduct for allegedly voting in the FIFA World Coach and Player of the Year awards in 2012.
He was replaced by former Monomotapa and CAPS United coach Maxwell Takaendesa Jongwe as ZIFA technical director this year.
ZIFA, who were represented by the association’s lawyer Ralph Maganga, have since appealed against the ruling by the arbitrator, Professor Lovemore Madhuku.
Matongorere’s lawyer Patrick Nyeperayi of Costa and Madzonga Legal Practitioners said they were waiting for the hearing date to be set since the case is now before the Labour Court, accusing ZIFA of merely employing delaying tactics which will backfire.
“ZIFA appealed against the award. It was handed down on August 14 and ZIFA noted their appeal on August 21, but we are yet to be given a date of hearing,” said Nyeperayi.
“They (ZIFA) are merely delaying, buying time, it’s an arbitral award. We are still to do the quantification, but we have since done our submission of admission.”
Nyeperayi said in the event ZIFA do not reinstate Matongorere, the amount that the veteran football official is demanding was likely to balloon as they would also be required to pay damages.
In a damning verdict Madhuku thrust ZIFA into the spotlight, as an organisation that can even constitute a ghost disciplinary committee, to deal with cases related to their employees or officials.
Madhuku ruled that Matongorere was “unfairly dismissed within the contemplation of Section 12B(2)(b)of the Labour Act (Chapter 28:01),” arising “from the facts that the respondent’s (ZIFA’s) disciplinary case was not in compliance with the model code.”
Madhuku ruled:
That the respondent (ZIFA) be, and is hereby, ordered to pay the claimant (Matongorere) his outstanding salary and benefits the quantum of which is to be agreed by the parties, failing which either party may approach this arbitral tribunal for a quantification of the same.
That, as a remedy for unfair dismissal, the respondent be and is hereby, ordered to reinstate the claimant without loss of salary and benefits with effect from the date of dismissal.
That pursuant to (the above), if reinstatement is no longer tenable, the respondent be and is hereby, ordered to pay the claimant damages in lieu of reinstatement, the quantum of which is to be agreed by the parties, failing which either party may approach this arbitral tribunal for a quantification of the same.
“The only issue here is one of quantum, it being admitted by the respondent that the claimant is owed salaries and benefits.
“The claimant says the relevant amount is US$113 462,90 while the respondent submits that it is an amount of US$25 341,25, being made up of US$13 484,02 (salary arrears) and US$11 857,23 (cash in lieu of accrued leave)
“I am unable to decide on the papers without further evidence. This is also an aspect over which the parties may reach agreement.”
ZIFA are currently languishing in a US$6 million debt web and have also lost the case, involving their former communications officer, Nicky Dhlamini-Moyo, who has been attaching the association’s property after her dismissal from work was ruled to be improper.
That Dhlamini-Moyo’s case is a carbon copy of Matongorere’s case show that ZIFA are an organisation that inherently bend their rules, now and again, to ensure that certain determinations are made.
The association has failed to bring closure to Asiagate after FIFA declined to endorse their raft of punishments, meted out to scores of individuals, because the accused people were not brought before a disciplinary committee.
ZIFA have also withheld the release of the findings of their Appeals Committee, which handled the cases of those who appealed, despite the fact that they each paid US$6 000 in November 2012.
Madhuku said the five-member ad hoc disciplinary committee, which presided over Matongorere’s case, was an illegal body which should not have dealt with the issue.
“While an ‘employer’ representative’ may be appointed for a particular case and be changed, from case to case, it is not permissible to set up an ad hoc disciplinary authority under SI15/ 2006,” read the ruling.
“The conclusion is inescapable that the disciplinary authority that presided over the disciplinary proceedings involving the claimant was not in accordance with SI15 /2006.
“It was an illegal body and its deliberations are null and void.
“An employer, who has no disciplinary authority already established and functioning, must make use of an ‘employer’s representative’ provided for in Section 6(4)b). An employer’s representative can only be one person and it refers to any person duly authorised by the employer.
“The conclusion I have reached on the legality of the disciplinary authority makes it unnecessary to consider the point of the inordinate delay in charging the claimant.
“In the result, it is my finding that the claimant was unfairly dismissed in that the purported termination was contrary to Section 12B(2)(b) which requires compliance with the model code.”
Online Reporter