FORMER Dynamos chief executive Casper Jonathan Muzenda has taken his ex-paymasters to court seeking to register his arbitral award after the Labour Court ruled his termination of employment was unlawful and ordered the football club to pay him over $34 875 in terminal benefits.
BY CHARLES LAITON
According to the court papers, Muzenda was employed by the club as its chief executive, but his contract of employment was abruptly terminated on September 22, 2014 after the club offered to abolish his post and further offered to pay him $1 000 for each year worked and three months’ pay in lieu of notice.
However, Muzenda apparently agreed to be retrenched, but refused to sign the termination letter and requested Dynamos Football Club to formally agree on the terms and conditions that would be followed to enable him to receive his dues.
But the parties later failed to resolve the matter amicably and the issue was then referred to the Labour Court judge, who made a ruling whose confirmation is now the subject of the pending proceedings before the High Court.
In the Labour Court, Justice Lilian Hove ruled that the refusal by Dynamos Football Club to pay Muzenda his terminal benefits on the basis that he had not been reporting for duty and providing services to the club, was neither here nor there given that it was the club’s decision to stop him from performing his duties.
“It was up to the employer (Dynamos) to pursue the process to its logical conclusion and secure the applicant’s (Muzenda) apparent consent to retrenchment and also pay the package as soon as was reasonably practicable,” Justice Hove said, adding Muzenda’s contract of employment had never been terminated.
“The employer’s duty to pay salaries in terms of the contract of employment is not extinguished by its failure to provide work.
- 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
“Its decision to advise the employee to stay at home cannot be used to penalise the employee who did not refuse to provide services.”
The judge said the principle of no work no pay was inapplicable in the case between Muzenda and the football club.
“The law does not place an absolute duty on an employer to provide the employee with work, hence the employer could tell its employee not to perform the work, but this does not rid him of the obligation to pay the employee’s salary,” Justice Hove said.
