×
NewsDay

AMH is an independent media house free from political ties or outside influence. We have four newspapers: The Zimbabwe Independent, a business weekly published every Friday, The Standard, a weekly published every Sunday, and Southern and NewsDay, our daily newspapers. Each has an online edition.

Fired PSMAS boss bounces back

News
FIRED Premier Service Medical Aid Society (PSMAS) managing director Henry Mandishona has bounced back to the medical aid society after the Labour Court ordered his reinstatement last Friday.

FIRED Premier Service Medical Aid Society (PSMAS) managing director Henry Mandishona has bounced back to the medical aid society after the Labour Court ordered his reinstatement last Friday.

by Everson Mushava

Mandishona was fired last September over corruption charges which included employing two senior managers without following correct procedures.

However, the court absolved him of any wrong doing and ordered his reinstatement without loss of benefits.

“To this end, it is my determination that all allegations levelled against the claimant be and are hereby dismissed and the claimant is entitled to reinstatement to his position without loss of pay and benefits,” read part of the judgment gleaned by NewsDay.

PSMAS

PSMAS had also accused Mandishona of irregularly approving advance payments of $15 000 to the head of finance and $10 490 to the head of human resources before the two had completed their probation. PSMAS also accused him of approving illegal donations of over $126 538 without approval of the board, thereby prejudicing his employer. The donations included the purchase of tables at First Lady Grace Mugabe’s birthday at a cost of $20 000.

Some of the allegations included irregular appointment of contractors to provide services to PSMAS.

On allegations of violating labour rules, the Labour Court ruled that there was no evidence of incompetence.

“It is highly probable to say an employee who is quite sound in this regard has no skills in the absence of tangible evidence does not sound reasonable especially given that the memo where the charges are originating from was prepared by the claimant’s subordinate and was distributed without his signature and approval.”

The ruling added: “Following the above analysis, it is clear that all the charges levelled against the claimant have not been substantiated in the wilful absence of the respondent, therefore, ought to be dismissed. Be that as it may, for the fact that the allegation was not consistent with the charge of theft or fraud in the main could not stand.”