News / National
Zimpost to appeal against High Court ruling
15 Dec 2011 at 07:28hrs | Views
The Commercial State enterprise Zimpost (Private) Limited plans to appeal to the Supreme Court against a High Court ruling on an arbitration award in favour of its workers in 2010.
The firm seeks permission to lodge a late appeal after failing to do so in the stipulated 15 days due to a breakdown in communication. It has appealed the ruling in Supreme Court Case SC326/11.
"This is an application for condonation of late noting of an appeal and extension of time within which to appeal in this Rule 6 of the Supreme Court (Miscellaneous Appeal and Reference Rules)" said Zimpost.
This has riled the workers' representatives, the Communications and Allied Services Workers' Union of Zimbabwe. They feel the appeal is designed to frustrate workers and delay delivery of justice.
Workers at Zimpost have not negotiated salaries in three years because of stalemates that end in the courts and take long to conclude.
Zimpost had lost the High Court case against more than 1 000 workers seeking a Poverty Datum Line-linked salary of US$490. The arbitrator, Mr Modercai Mahlangu , ruled in favour of the workers, although the award was lower than the workers were demanding for the least paid among them.
Mr Mahlangu had awarded US$25 a month for the period between April 2009 and August 2009 as well as September 2009 and December 2009, giving the least paid worker a monthly salary of US$300.
"In doing so I realise further financial strain will be added to respondent company, but believe this is necessary in fairness to claimant," he said.
The State-owned enterprise did not agree with the arbitrator's ruling and appealed to the High Court in case number HC3275/2010. But in what has left the feuding parties bemused, the judgment on the appeal was handed down last year, but none of the parties were informed of it. The parties discovered the judgment was out in November 2011.
Zimpost, which claims it was not treated fairly during the arbitration process, has claimed that the High Court erred in dismissing its appeal.
"The applicant considered the judgment carefully and is of the view the court allowed itself to be a slave of rules by dismissing the application on the basis of perceived procedural irregularity," said Zimpost.
But its appeals against arbitral rulings are fast becoming habitual having done the same in 2005 and later dismissed workers who went on strike after the firm successfully appealed to the Supreme Court.
Caswuz secretary-general Mr Christopher Chizura lamented Zimpost's move. He said the parastatal's least-paid worker received US$230 a month. He claimed Zimpost was taking advantage of the fact that appeals to the Supreme Court delayed justice for the workers.
He said they would consult members on the way forward.
"If only the Labour Court dealt decisively with labour issues because appeals to the High Court and Supreme Court result in lengthy delays. And justice delayed is justice denied," said Mr Chizura.
The firm seeks permission to lodge a late appeal after failing to do so in the stipulated 15 days due to a breakdown in communication. It has appealed the ruling in Supreme Court Case SC326/11.
"This is an application for condonation of late noting of an appeal and extension of time within which to appeal in this Rule 6 of the Supreme Court (Miscellaneous Appeal and Reference Rules)" said Zimpost.
This has riled the workers' representatives, the Communications and Allied Services Workers' Union of Zimbabwe. They feel the appeal is designed to frustrate workers and delay delivery of justice.
Workers at Zimpost have not negotiated salaries in three years because of stalemates that end in the courts and take long to conclude.
Zimpost had lost the High Court case against more than 1 000 workers seeking a Poverty Datum Line-linked salary of US$490. The arbitrator, Mr Modercai Mahlangu , ruled in favour of the workers, although the award was lower than the workers were demanding for the least paid among them.
Mr Mahlangu had awarded US$25 a month for the period between April 2009 and August 2009 as well as September 2009 and December 2009, giving the least paid worker a monthly salary of US$300.
"In doing so I realise further financial strain will be added to respondent company, but believe this is necessary in fairness to claimant," he said.
The State-owned enterprise did not agree with the arbitrator's ruling and appealed to the High Court in case number HC3275/2010. But in what has left the feuding parties bemused, the judgment on the appeal was handed down last year, but none of the parties were informed of it. The parties discovered the judgment was out in November 2011.
Zimpost, which claims it was not treated fairly during the arbitration process, has claimed that the High Court erred in dismissing its appeal.
"The applicant considered the judgment carefully and is of the view the court allowed itself to be a slave of rules by dismissing the application on the basis of perceived procedural irregularity," said Zimpost.
But its appeals against arbitral rulings are fast becoming habitual having done the same in 2005 and later dismissed workers who went on strike after the firm successfully appealed to the Supreme Court.
Caswuz secretary-general Mr Christopher Chizura lamented Zimpost's move. He said the parastatal's least-paid worker received US$230 a month. He claimed Zimpost was taking advantage of the fact that appeals to the Supreme Court delayed justice for the workers.
He said they would consult members on the way forward.
"If only the Labour Court dealt decisively with labour issues because appeals to the High Court and Supreme Court result in lengthy delays. And justice delayed is justice denied," said Mr Chizura.
Source - TH
