Zacc workers win benefits court case


THE 26 employees of the Zimbabwe Anti-Corruption Commission (Zacc) are set to share over $300 000 in outstanding allowances after the Labour Court ruled in their favour last month.


The order was granted by two Labour Court judges, Justices Lillian Kudya and Lawrence Murasi after entertaining the labour dispute that had been referred back to the lower court by the Supreme Court last year.

The dispute between Zacc and its employees, took several twists and turns as the employees accused their employer of varying the workers employment contracts without their consent, an assertion which was dismissed by the Labour Court.

However, the court conceded the employees’ allowances and contractual benefits had not been shown on their payslips.

“The arbitrator should have restricted himself to stating that the payslips should reflect all the contractual benefits…Having stated that there is no evidence of variation of contract, I need to consider the arbitrator’s award. I find that the arbitrator’s award in paragraph (a) is not competent as he did not have the power/mandate to order the parties to a round-table,” Justice Murasi said.

“The appeal, being with merit, is allowed. The arbitrator’s award dated January 13 2013, be and is hereby set aside and substituted with the following: (a) The appellant be and is hereby ordered to include all the contractual benefits on the payslips. (b) The appellant be and is hereby ordered to pay the respondents contractual benefits as follows: housing, transport, cell phone and anti-corruption allowances, cell phone, pay the 13th cheque, provide the group life cover and pay medical aid cover.

“The benefits listed in paragraph (b) above to be paid with effect from the date of appointment in terms of the contracts of employment.”

The judges, however, said the arbitrator’s mandate was to consider whether there was an unfair labour practice and find the remedy thereof.

“In conclusion, the court finds that the arbitrator erred in finding that there was variation of the respondent’s contract of employment. Further, the arbitrator erred in awarding benefits which were not part of the contract,” the judge said.

At one time the court granted an order for the attachment of the commission’s property to recover the employees’ benefits.