Charles Bangure v Mashonaland Tobacco Company

### Preamble
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE
JUDGMENT
NO LC/H/683/14
HELD AT HARARE 2ND OCTOBER 2014
CASE NO
---------




IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE	       JUDGMENT NO LC/H/683/14

HELD AT HARARE 2ND OCTOBER 2014 		CASE NO LC/H/822/12

& 10TH OCTOBER 2014

In the matter between:-

CHARLES BANGURE					Appellant

And

MASHONALAND TOBACCO COMPANY		Respondent

Before The Honourable F.C. Maxwell, Judge

Appellant			In person

For Respondent		Mr T Kwaramba (Human Resources Manager)

MAXWELL, J:

This is an appeal from a decision of the National Employment Council (NEC) for the Tobacco Industry.  Appellant was employed by the respondent as a motorbike messenger driver.  Before dollarization he was given a Grade 3 C notch which was merit based.  His wages were above a grade 8 A1 employee.  After dollarization appellant’s grade was changed to Grade 4 E but the salary was below that of Grade 8 A1.  Appellant resigned in April 2011.

Appellant and three others referred the issue of the removal of the notch to the Works Council.  The Works Council decided that it was a matter to be solved by the respective managers.  The Human Resources Manager notified the appellant and his colleagues that management did not see any justification in their complaint as they were earning more than the grades they should actually be in.  The matter was then referred to the National Employment Council Tobacco Industry Grievance and Disciplinary Committee  (the Committee).  On 29 September 2012 the Committee ruled that respondent should pay appellant the difference between the wage he received and that of a National Employment Council Grade 8 wage prevailing at the time up to the date of his resignation April 2011.  On 16 October 2012 appellant noted this appeal.  His complaint is that the National Employment Council gave him Grade 8 even though they agreed that he used to exceed Grade 8 A1.  He based his argument on paragraph 4 of the amendment to the Collective Bargaining Agreement; salaries and wages: Tobacco (Miscellaneous) sector dated 9 March 2009.  The said paragraph states

“Notwithstanding the minimum wages set out in Annexure 1 below, any employee who is in receipt of a wage in excess of the minimum wages laid down for February 2009 shall have their wage increased by the percentage difference between the last grade one wage and their last wage.”

Respondent opposed the appeal on the basis that what appellant earned was above National Employment Council levels.  It submitted that a messenger is in Grade 3C, Grade 8 is the highest grade in the sector.  Respondent is of the review that the appellant is ungrateful to raise a complaint when the company was paying him above National Employment Council rates.  Respondent submitted that the National Employment Council award is unreasonable but  would comply with it.  In its view what the appellant wants is for this Court to award what is above what the industry pays.

Appellant referred the court to the case of one of his colleagues Morgen Paradza v Mashonaland Tobacco Company LC/H/198/13.  The reasoning in that case is applicable to his case.  The amendment of 9 March 2009 made it clear that it was intended to award increments above the stipulated minimum.  The respondent’s argument that appellant is asking the court to  award what is above that stipulated by the industry is therefore without merit.

Appellant has made out his case.  He is entitled to have the salary he earned between the inception of dollarization and his resignation adjusted accordingly.  He is entitled to the percentage difference between the last Grade one wage and his last wage just before dollarization.  I am inclined to adopt the stance taken by my brother who dealt with the Paradza matter to remit the matter back to the National Employment Council to re-adjust and calculate what is due to him.

Wherefore it is ordered that

The appeal be and is hereby allowed.

The matter is remitted back to the National Employment Council Tobacco Industry for it to calculate the shortfalls due to appellant for the period prior to his resignation.