News / Local
Employment council sues minister Mavima
26 Mar 2021 at 18:02hrs | Views
THE National Employment Council for the Commercial Sectors of Zimbabwe (NECCSZ) has challenged at the High Court a decision by Labour minister Paul Mavima to appoint two administrators on their board.
In the court application, the NECCSZ has cited Mavima as the first respondent together with Attorney-General Prince Machaya as well as the appointees - Mary Mapfika and Samson Dandira.
NECCSZ chairperson Moses Mtombeni said Mavima approached the council's secretary- general and the chief designated agent on March 17 and informed them of his decision to appoint Dandira and Mapfika as administrators.
Mtombeni is arguing that Mavima has no authority to appoint the duo as administrators as the Labour Act stipulates that that right lies with the Labour Court.
"The minister does not have the power to appoint administrators. Section 63A (7) of the Labour Act very clearly states that if the minister accepts a recommendation to appoint administrators, he must make an application to the Labour Court.
"It is the Labour Court that appoints the administrator, not the minister," Mthombeni said in the application.
Additionally, Mtombeni is arguing that the NECCSZ does not have the financial stability to pay Dandira and Mapfika's hefty allowances of $250 000 per month as stated by Mavima.
"The allowances ordered by the first respondent are grossly unreasonable.
"First respondent did not even inquire of the Nec if it could afford such allowances, and the Nec cannot afford them at all.
"This decision by the minister is more than grossly unreasonable, it is actually reckless," he said.
Mtombeni is insisting that the appointment of the administrators is unlawful as Mavima made the decision without giving them a chance to voice their opinions.
"The first respondent made the decision to appoint an administrator without giving the applicant the opportunity to be heard.
"Not only did the Nec have a right to be heard in terms of the rules of natural justice, but section 3 of the Administrative Justice Act specifically required him to allow the Nec a reasonable opportunity to make representations before making his administrative decision," he said.
In the court application, the NECCSZ has cited Mavima as the first respondent together with Attorney-General Prince Machaya as well as the appointees - Mary Mapfika and Samson Dandira.
NECCSZ chairperson Moses Mtombeni said Mavima approached the council's secretary- general and the chief designated agent on March 17 and informed them of his decision to appoint Dandira and Mapfika as administrators.
Mtombeni is arguing that Mavima has no authority to appoint the duo as administrators as the Labour Act stipulates that that right lies with the Labour Court.
"The minister does not have the power to appoint administrators. Section 63A (7) of the Labour Act very clearly states that if the minister accepts a recommendation to appoint administrators, he must make an application to the Labour Court.
"It is the Labour Court that appoints the administrator, not the minister," Mthombeni said in the application.
Additionally, Mtombeni is arguing that the NECCSZ does not have the financial stability to pay Dandira and Mapfika's hefty allowances of $250 000 per month as stated by Mavima.
"The allowances ordered by the first respondent are grossly unreasonable.
"First respondent did not even inquire of the Nec if it could afford such allowances, and the Nec cannot afford them at all.
"This decision by the minister is more than grossly unreasonable, it is actually reckless," he said.
Mtombeni is insisting that the appointment of the administrators is unlawful as Mavima made the decision without giving them a chance to voice their opinions.
"The first respondent made the decision to appoint an administrator without giving the applicant the opportunity to be heard.
"Not only did the Nec have a right to be heard in terms of the rules of natural justice, but section 3 of the Administrative Justice Act specifically required him to allow the Nec a reasonable opportunity to make representations before making his administrative decision," he said.
Source - dailynews
