Sino-Zim, a joint venture between the governments of Zimbabwe and China, has approached the Supreme Court challenging the Labour Court’s order compelling it to renew the cancelled fixed-term contracts of its 29 employees.
BY CHARLES LAITON
According to the court papers, the employees cited as respondents, Knowledge Hlomayi and 28 others were employed by Sino-Zim on fixed-term contract basis while operating in diverse capacities from 2006 to 2012.
It is said they were employed on three-month contracts that were renewed over a period ranging from seven months to seven years, meaning every three months they would sign new contracts.
In the contracts signed, it is alleged there was a clause which read: “The signing or renewal of this contract does not serve as any promise for future permanent employment.”
However, following the expiry of their respective fixed-term contracts on the December 31 2012, Sino-Zim is said to have refused to re-engage its contract workers, prompting them to approach the courts in January 2013 citing unfair dismissal.
When the matter was heard in the Labour Court, Sino-Zim was ordered to re-engage its employees, a decision it sought to challenge in the Supreme Court.
“There is no paramount principle of public policy that has been violated by parties entering freely into a contract for a specific duration of time,” Sino-Zim said in the court papers.
- 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
“The employer cannot be compelled to keep the employees on employment, whether or not he likes. That entirely defeats the freedom enshrined in Chapter 4 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe.
“In the premises, therefore, the appellant prays that the present appeal be allowed, the judgment of the Labour Court be set aside and in its place, a judgment be granted dismissing the respondent’s appeal to the Labour Court with costs.”
In their answering affidavits, the employees said the only issue that was referred for compulsory arbitration was a determination on whether or not they were unfairly dismissed and, if so, the remedy thereof.