SIXTY-TWO drivers with Cargo Carriers International Hauliers have taken the company to the Supreme Court seeking an interdict to stop the transport firm from dismissing drivers who would have refused to do unpaid overtime.
BY CHARLES LAITON SENIOR COURT REPORTER
The drivers — represented by Boniface Magurure, Jeremiah Mangwendeza, Tsaurai Wadarwa and Shepherd Makoni — claim that the firm has over the past years been forcing them to work over 17 hours a day without remuneration for the extra hours worked.
Mangwendeza and Wadarwa, have since been dismissed from employment on allegations of inciting their colleagues to revolt.
In the court papers, the drivers said their employment contracts were silent on the issue of overtime remuneration and, as such, their employer was capitalising on that loophole to deny them the right to protest unfair labour practices.
Part of the application reads: “The respondent (Cargo Carriers International Hauliers) has gone so far as to write a memo that advises the drivers to drive between the hours of 4am to 9pm on a trip. The said memo does not restrict these excessive hours to emergency cases. Rather, the instruction is couched in general terms.”
“In terms of section 5(2) (b) of the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA): Transport Operating Industry, the applicants’ ordinary weekly hours of work are 47 hours, with the proviso that they shall be allowed an hour overtime at the end of the road trip, for which they are entitled to overtime payment . . . but the respondent has resorted to dismissing drivers who decline to work overtime to the extent that there is no payment.”
In its opposing papers, the company urged the court to dismiss the application arguing the matter was not constitutional.
- 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
“Whilst it is accepted that this honourable court should give a purposive and meaningful interpretation to the provisions of the Declaration of Rights, it is submitted that this honourable court must guard against litigants using the jurisdiction of this court to bypass procedures laid down for the resolution of particular types of disputes,” the firm said in its heads of arguments.
“And in particular should guard against a situation where this honourable court becomes the final arbiter of the terms and conditions relating to employment. “What is argued is that they are entitled to be paid more than that fair and reasonable wage to take account of what they claim to be overtime that they are required to work,” the firm argued.
The matter is yet to be set down for hearing.
