Striking Tobacco workers' case referred to ConCourt

THE CASE involving 1 750 Mashonaland Tobacco workers seeking to embark on a strike over unpaid housing and transport allowances without giving 14 days notice as required by the Labour Act has been referred to the Constitutional Court (ConCourt).

Labour lawyer, Caleb Mucheche argued before the Labour Court that the new Constitution gives the workers a right to strike without notice.

It is the workers' argument that Section 104 of the Labour Act, which makes it a requirement for the workers to issue out a 14-day notice for strike, was unconstitutional.

In terms of Section 65 (3) of the new Constitution, the workers said, employees were given unlimited freedom to participate in collective job action.

The section reads: "Except for members of the security services, every employee has the right to participate in a collective job action, including the right to strike, sit-in, withdraw their labour and to take other similar concerted action, but a law may restrict to exercise this right in order to maintain essential services."

Mucheche argued the business of Mashonaland Tobacco did not fall under essential or security services and that Section 104 of the Labour Act was not applicable under the circumstances.

After hearing the argument, Labour Court judges Emilia Muchawa and Fatima Maxwell, referred the case to the Constitutional Court for determination of the constitutional issues.

Mucheche said as long as the Labour Act was not synchronised with the new Constitution,Section 104 of the Labour Act remains invalid

Mashonaland Tobacco argued that the workers downed tools on October 3 this year over unpaid transport and housing allowances without giving notice.

They embarked on a strike after the parties failed to agree on the payment of the allowances, resulting in the employer applying for a show-cause order to the Minister of Public Service, Labour and Social Welfare.

The minister stopped the strike and referred the case to the Labour Court for the workers to justify the legality of their action.

According to the employer, Section 65 (3) of the Constitution does not nullify the procedure provided for in the Labour Act.

The company said the 14-day notice for strike was not given and secret ballot was not conducted.

It was the employer's argument that there was no attempt by the workers to settle the matter through conciliation.