Load shedding, companies can pay only for the time worked says the Labour Court

RELENTLESS load-shedding by Zesa Holdings is crippling industry, prompting the Labour Court to rule that companies are allowed to enter into agreements to pay their workers only for the time worked.

The court said this was permissible to save the companies from collapse.

The judgment also left room for firms that have capacity to absorb the costs to proceed and pay full salaries.

In a judgment last week, the President of the Labour Court, Ms Loice Matanda-Moyo, ruled in favour of a local company, Adhesive Tapes, in a case in which an employee, Mr Maxwell Nyakudarikwa, was contesting the deduction on his salary for the hours he had not worked due to power cuts.

The company, through its human resources manager, Mr Tererai Maraidza, convinced the court that paying workers for mere availability for work without production was not sustainable.

The problem, according to Mr Maraidza, was beyond the company's control and that such agreements between workers and employers should be honoured at law.

Continuous load-shedding by Zesa has sparked a row between companies and their workers as employers have resorted to deducting part of the salaries to compensate for the hours that the workers fail to produce due to power cuts.Employers contended that their companies could not continue operating while paying people for hours they spent loitering or seated without production.

Load-shedding forced Adhesive Tapes to enter into an agreement with the workers' committee to pay workers for hours they work and not for their availability at work.

Load-shedding caused workers to work short time.

An agreement was reached with the workers that they would go away during periods of load-shedding and compensate those hours when power is restored.

Failure to compensate for the time, the workers risked getting lesser salaries at the end of the month.

Ms Matanda-Moyo ruled that as long as there is an agreement between the workers and the employer, such deductions should be effected without any breach of the law.

"This court takes judicial notice of the hard times that the industry is facing currently. It is true that load-shedding by Zesa has been crippling the industry.

"In such situations, the courts should not fold their hands and issue orders which have the effect of closing down a company.

"Courts should look at all prevailing circumstances and come up with a judgment which ensures that whilst the employee is compensated, the firm or company should also continue so that lives of many other employees are not prejudiced," she said.

The judge said a balance should be struck between the two competing interests.

She said courts should try to give effect to agreements that have been voluntarily entered as long as they do not violate the laws of the country.

"The law of contract becomes applicable. The respondent should be allowed to deduct the short hours in terms of the agreement between appellant and respondent."

In the case of Adhesive Tapes and Mr Nyakudarikwa, the company resolved to deduct money for hours not worked from the employee's earnings.

The firm wanted to deduct US$712 being short time hours, but an arbitrator barred it from recovering the money.

The arbitrator acknowledged the existence of the agreement, but ruled that it was an illegal agreement.

That prompted Adhesive Tapes through Mr Maraidza to appeal to the Labour Court.

Mr Maraidza, during the court proceedings, maintained that the company would close down if it was compelled to pay the workers for availability for work without production.