EMPLOYERS in the motor industry have been ordered to pay employees two years’ backdated salary increments following a Labour Court ruling.
The dispute began in January 2024 when employees demanded a 30% increase in basic wages and a 50% rise in transport and housing allowances.
The Motor Industry Employers Association of Zimbabwe (MIEAZ) objected, arguing that salary increments should be determined at plant level.
After failing to reach an agreement and declaring a wage deadlock, the parties referred the matter to the Public Service, Labour and Social Welfare ministry for compulsory arbitration.
In a determination issued on February 11, 2025, arbitrator Bianca Chipokosha awarded a 10% minimum wage increase and a 20% increment on transport and housing allowances. The increments were to be paid in three equal instalments starting in February 2025.
“The increments were to be paid in three equal instalments starting from February 2025,” the letter read.
MIEAZ, represented by lawyer Caleb Mucheche of Mucheche and Partners, appealed the ruling at the Labour Court, seeking to overturn the arbitral award.
In their appeal, the employers argued that the arbitrator had erred in law by backdating the wage and allowance increases to July 2024, thereby unlawfully imposing conditions of service.
- Addressing unclaimed benefits problem in Zimbabwe
- Risks associated with buying used cars from South Africa
- Motoring: What is the future of manual transmission cars?
- Motor industry workers win two-year backpay
Keep Reading
“The arbitrator grossly erred and seriously misdirected herself on a point of law by unilaterally imposing a 10% wage increment and 20% increment on transport and housing allowance since July 2024, thereby arbitrarily and unlawfully creating conditions of service for employer and employee parties,” the letter read.
However, the employees, represented by Albert Chambati of Chambati, Mataka and Makonese Attorneys-at-Law, opposed the appeal, arguing that it lacked merit and was inconsistent with the facts presented before both the arbitrator and the court.
“An appeal on a question of law shall not lie to the Labour Court for any decision of an arbitrator. The court can only interfere if the arbitrator’s factual findings are proven to be illogical, grossly unreasonable and in defiance of common sense, amounting to a gross misdirection in law,” Chambati submitted.
Presiding over the matter, Justice Bridget Chivizhe dismissed the appeal, ruling that the arbitrator had acted within her mandate and that the terms of reference had been agreed to in accordance with the law.
“It is apparent that the arbitrator’s factual findings were well-reasoned. The appellant’s allegation that she paid ‘lip service’ to the employer’s financial inability to pay the amounts awarded is not supported by the record,” Chivizhe said.
The judge further ruled that backdating the increments to January 2024 formed part of the agreed terms of reference. While employees addressed the issue in their submissions before the arbitrator, the employers did not respond to it.
“In the result, it is ordered that the appeal be and is hereby dismissed with costs for lack of merit. The arbitral award per Honourable Bianca Chipokosha dated February 11, 2025, is upheld,” Justice Chivizhe ruled.
