THE seven-year-old labour dispute between Colbro transport company and five of its former employees has remained unresolved after a senior company official, Gabriel Gwatirisa, who was handling the matter, reportedly migrated to South Africa.
BY OUR STAFF REPORTER
Lazarus Pasipanodya and four others who are not stated in court papers were dismissed from work sometime in 2005 under unclear circumstances.
The workers, through Mandla Sibanda, then a paralegal officer with the Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions, took the matter for arbitration.
The arbitrator advised the workers to take the matter to the Labour Court where Judge President Mercy Moya Matshanga ordered the company to reinstate the workers with full pay and benefits from the date of their illegal dismissal.
In 2008, the company then applied to the Labour Court for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court opposing the Labour Court ruling over the matter.
The company in its application said the court misdirected itself in dealing with the matter.
It also submitted that the workers were fired for failure to obey a lawful order, hence the court erred in that it left out the issue in its ruling.
- Chamisa under fire over US$120K donation
- Mavhunga puts DeMbare into Chibuku quarterfinals
- Pension funds bet on Cabora Bassa oilfields
- Councils defy govt fire tender directive
Keep Reading
However, the judge dismissed the application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court saying the grounds of appeal had no substance.
Pasipanodya yesterday said since their grant to go back to work was given, the company had not reinstated or paid them accordingly.
“After the company attempted to take the matter to the Supreme Court and failed, we could not locate the company’s chief executive officer Gwatirisa who was handling the cases,” Pasipanodya said. “We understand he went out of the country, a move that has stalled the case.”
On March 12 this year, the workers, through their lawyers from Maganga and Company law firm, wrote to the company’s lawyers Dube, Manikai and Hwacha complaining over the delay in resolving the matter.
Part of the letter reads: “Our clients are of the view that the matter was being frustrated so as to avoid its finalisation.”
However, as of yesterday, the lawyers had not responded to the workers’ request.
