A total of 300 former Air Zimbabwe employees have lost their appeal against their retrenchment after the labour court ruled they could not do so after accepting retrenchment packages.
The 300 were fired following the infamous Zuva Petroleum Private Limited 2015 judgement which led to the termination of over 6000 jobs in a week.
The judgment established that an employment contract can be terminated by either party after giving notice.
This dismissal was challenged to the Supreme Court wherein it ordered a reinstatement of the employees and payment of damages in lieu thereof.
On the 12th of December 2020, the first respondent reinstated the appellants, paid them all their dues and also placed them on unpaid leave.
While they were on forced leave, Air Zimbabwe was placed under administration in terms of the Reconstruction of State Indebted Insolvent Companies Act Chapter 24:27.
Sometime in March 2021, Air Zimbabwe initiated a retrenchment process for the appellants.
It paid them the minimum terminal benefits in terms of the Labour Act.
They received and consumed the benefits.
Thereafter, they complained that Air Zimbabwe had not complied with the Supreme Court order to reinstate and that in any case, the retrenchment exercise was flawed.
The matter then spilled to the National Employment Council (NEC) which concluded that the Supreme Court order had been complied with.
NEC representative Ellen Nyamanhindi further found that by taking and consuming the retrenchment package the appellants had waived their right to challenge the process.
In other words, they had agreed with the process.
Their claims were dismissed hence the present appeal.
The employees among other things argued that NEC grossly erred on a question of law by failing to appreciate that a retrenchment is not alternative relief for reinstatement ordered by the Supreme Court and Labour Court and such a decision is in defiance of logic.
However, Labour Court judge Justice Custom Kachambwa ruled in favour of Air Zimbabwe noting that employees who accept their retrenchment packages, cannot then claim that they have not accepted the terms and conditions of the retrenchment.
“Termination of employment on notice is acceptable under common law whether the reason is economic or otherwise.
“Given the facts of the case, one can safely say that the appellants knew of and accepted the retrenchment when they accepted the back pay which was more than they were owed.
“They cannot then cry foul saying that they did not know that the back pay included their retrenchment package. Ignorance of the law is not an excuse.
“The appellants received and acknowledged receipt of retrenchment letters,” he said.
Kachambwa also said the former employees acknowledged receipt of the letters by appending their signatures and hence they cannot then say they did not read the contents and claim that they were not notified of the termination.
“It is crystal clear that the retrenchment process in terms of Section 12C is a self-regulating process which was meant to make it easier for parties to complete the retrenchment process without going through the rigours of via the retrenchment board for approval or the Minister of Labour as used to be the case under the old repealed section which made retrenchment a cumbersome process.”
The judge ruled, “The appellants were reinstated and they waived their right to the procedure for retrenchment. The appeal has no merit in the circumstances.
“It is accordingly held that the appeal be and is hereby dismissed with costs.”
Source NewZimbabwe
