Business / Companies
CABS Bank to pay dismissed workers in Zimbabwe dollars
18 Mar 2012 at 19:14hrs | Views
THE Central African Building Society has offered to pay in Zimbabwe dollars 10 workers it was ordered to reinstate by the Labour Court.
The institution's lawyers, Gill, Gondlonton and Gerrans, have written to the Commercial Workers Union of Zimbabwe indicating this view.
On the payment of damages, it was indicated that the workers were entitled to payment in Zimbabwe dollars.
The reason given by CABS is that the workers should have mitigated their loss by securing alternative employment within a reasonable period following their dismissal in 2003.
However, CABS later reneged on the payment in Zimbabwe dollars position in the same letter by tendering the equivalent of five months' salary and benefits in United States dollars as a full and final settlement.
The financial institution said this would be based on the current salary rates applicable for the positions held by the workers at the time of dismissal.
However, the workers have rejected the offer and the matter is set to go back to the Labour Court for quantification of damages.
In December last year, the Labour Court ordered CABS to reinstate the 10 workers who were fired 12 years ago for going on strike, or pay them damages for loss of employment.
In March 2003, the workers were arraigned before a disciplinary hearing on charges of sabotage and inciting others to strike.
They were found guilty and were dismissed, while their appeal to the negotiating committee was unsuccessful.
Aggrieved by the dismissal, the workers then sought recourse with the Labour Court, where president Ms Lilian Hove ruled in their favour.
The workers had argued that the negotiating committee had not given them a chance to defend themselves.
It was also argued that there was nothing in the record to prove that the workers had been violent or sabotaged CABS operations.
In its ruling, the court agreed with the workers that the issue for determination was whether or not the employer proved allegations against the workers.
Ms Hove pointed out that it was a settled principle that he who alleges must prove and the negotiating committee was wrong in finding that CABS proved allegations.
This was because the workers had not given evidence to rebut the allegations.
The institution's lawyers, Gill, Gondlonton and Gerrans, have written to the Commercial Workers Union of Zimbabwe indicating this view.
On the payment of damages, it was indicated that the workers were entitled to payment in Zimbabwe dollars.
The reason given by CABS is that the workers should have mitigated their loss by securing alternative employment within a reasonable period following their dismissal in 2003.
However, CABS later reneged on the payment in Zimbabwe dollars position in the same letter by tendering the equivalent of five months' salary and benefits in United States dollars as a full and final settlement.
The financial institution said this would be based on the current salary rates applicable for the positions held by the workers at the time of dismissal.
However, the workers have rejected the offer and the matter is set to go back to the Labour Court for quantification of damages.
In December last year, the Labour Court ordered CABS to reinstate the 10 workers who were fired 12 years ago for going on strike, or pay them damages for loss of employment.
In March 2003, the workers were arraigned before a disciplinary hearing on charges of sabotage and inciting others to strike.
They were found guilty and were dismissed, while their appeal to the negotiating committee was unsuccessful.
Aggrieved by the dismissal, the workers then sought recourse with the Labour Court, where president Ms Lilian Hove ruled in their favour.
The workers had argued that the negotiating committee had not given them a chance to defend themselves.
It was also argued that there was nothing in the record to prove that the workers had been violent or sabotaged CABS operations.
In its ruling, the court agreed with the workers that the issue for determination was whether or not the employer proved allegations against the workers.
Ms Hove pointed out that it was a settled principle that he who alleges must prove and the negotiating committee was wrong in finding that CABS proved allegations.
This was because the workers had not given evidence to rebut the allegations.
Source - TH
