Riva v National Social Security Authority 2002 (1) ZLR 412 (H)

/0 Comments/in /by

Mr L T Biti for the respondents – employment contract and termination. After disciplinary proceedings are started against him by the resident his employer the applicant wrote to the response, starting that “as per his contract, he wished to give three months’ notice to terminate his employment and to make use of the benefits normally due on resignation. Tendai later, he wrote to say that as he had received no confirmation of his letter, he was retracting his notice f resignation. the respondent wrote at the same time agreeing that he be allowed to terminate his services by resignation. The applicant claimed that his letter was not a formal act of resignation, but an offer which could be accepted or rejected by the respondent.l

held that the giving of notice is a unilateral act, which requires no acceptance or rejection by the party receiving the notice. That part is not entitled to refuse or to ace such notice and decline to act on it. Notice once given, is final an can only be withdrawn with the consent of the employer . The applicants letter was not expressed as an offer but as a statement and as such his resignation could not be withdrawn except with the the respondents consent.

Fungura & Anor v ZIMNAT Insurance co ltd 2001 (1) ZLR 412 (S)

/0 Comments/in /by

MR LT Biti for the appellants — employment and labour contract termination. The appellants, employees of the respondent, were among many employees who recovered not of entrenchment following the merger of the respondent with another company. meetings of the respondents works council were held but for some time no agreement was reached within the council on the question of retrenchment. The affected employees were given notice of another meeting of the council. the appellants wrote to the respondent disowning any agreement the council might reach. on the same day t, the council reached an agreement and purporting to act in terms of the relevant regulations, gave permission to the respondent to retrench the affected employees.

The high court dismissed an application to have the retrenchment set aside and for the appellants to be reinstated. the court held that the agreement reached in the works council was bind on the appellants.

held, that the function o f the works council, which is composed of the representatives of the employer and the employees, is to try to secure agreement between the employer and the affected employees. If it does yeah agreement within itself, it must try to obtain the agreement of the parties. An agreement reached with he council is not bring on either the employer or the employees. The employees would only be bout if the workers representatives in the council had previously been given authority to negotiate on behalf of and to bind the employees to be retrenched. Without such authority, ice even a single employee disagrees with the retrenchment package agreed upon with he council, the matter must be referred to the retrenchment committee, In this case, the appellants had no authorize either the workers representative or the works council to either in an agreement binding on them, nor could thy be said to have waived their rights.

PTC v Chihoro 1997 (1) ZLR 148 (S)

/in /by

Employment and Termination of employment appeal

Supreme court of Harare in front of the Chief justice Gubbay

The respondent whom Mr Biti stood for was employed by the PTC as a postal messenger. On afternoon, he told his immediate superior that he was feeling unwell and needed to visit his doctor. He was told to continue until 3pm. On his way out, he was handed some telegrams to deliver some of which he delivered and some of which he returned. In spite of being told so he refused to deliver the remaining message stating unless he left immediately he would not be attended to by his doctor. He left was seen by his doctor, who found him to be suffering from arthritis andrecommended two days bed rest. The PTC applied for an order terminating the respondents employment on the grounds of wilful disobedience to a lawful order.

The Labour Relations Tribunal found the order to deliver the remaining telegrams was unreasonable as it would have resulted in the danger to the respondents health or life. The PTC applied agains this finding. Held, that the refusal to deliver the telegrams was wilful disobedience by the respondent, delivery of telegrams was part of his work. held, further that a sick employee would only be justified in refusing to carry our an order relations to the character or capacity of his contract of employment if his illness were such as to make compliance with the order impossible.held,further that the respondents condition was not such that it would have jeopardised his health or life.held, further that there is no requirement that a lawful order must also be reasonable; but if it is so unreasonable as to defy common sense then it cannot be lawful. Something is “lawful” if it is inconformity with, or frequently not opposed to, the principle or spirit of the law whether moral or judicial. An order so unreasonable as to oppose that spirit or principle cannot be law. Implicit in lawful is what is not unreasonable.