By Staff Reporter

A total of 300 former Air Zimbabwe employees who fired following the infamous Zuva Petroleum Private Limited 2015 judgement have lost their appeal against their retrenchment after the Labour Court ruled they could not do so after accepting retrenchment packages.

Following their dismissal, the employees lodged a challenged to the Supreme Court which then ordered a reinstatement of the employees and payment of damages in lieu thereof. However, the employees were reinstated in December 2020, paid their dues but were then placed on unpaid leave.

In March 2021, Air Zimbabwe initiated a retrenchment process for the appellants and paid them the minimum terminal benefits in terms of the Labour Act.

Thereafter, the employees alleged that Air Zimbabwe had not complied with the Supreme Court order to reinstate and that the retrenchment exercise was flawed.

The matter was referred to the National Employment Council (NEC) which determined that the Supreme Court order had been complied with. The NEC noted that by taking and consuming the retrenchment package the appellants had waived their right to challenge the process.

The employees argued that NEC grossly erred on a question of law by failing to appreciate that a retrenchment is not alternative relief for reinstatement ordered by the Supreme Court and Labour Court and such a decision was not logical.

However, Labour Court Judge Justice Custom Kachambwa ruled that employees who accept their retrenchment packages, cannot claim that they have not accepted the terms and conditions of the retrenchment.

“Termination of employment on notice is acceptable under common law whether the reason is economic or otherwise. Given the facts of the case, one can safely say that the appellants knew of and accepted the retrenchment when they accepted the back pay which was more than they were owed. They cannot then cry foul saying that they did not know that the back pay included their retrenchment package. Ignorance of the law is not an excuse. The appellants received and acknowledged receipt of retrenchment letters,” he said.

Kachambwa also said the affected workers had acknowledged receipt of the letters by appending their signatures hence they could not claim that they did not read the contents and claim that they were not notified of the termination.

“It is crystal clear that the retrenchment process in terms of Section 12C is a self-regulating process which was meant to make it easier for parties to complete the retrenchment process without going through the rigours of via the retrenchment board for approval or the Minister of Labour as used to be the case under the old repealed section which made retrenchment a cumbersome process.”

The judge ruled, “The appellants were reinstated and they waived their right to the procedure for retrenchment. The appeal has no merit in the circumstances. It is accordingly held that the appeal be and is hereby dismissed with costs.”