Emmanuel Maputsenyika v Peter Kororo

### Preamble
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE
JUDGMENT NO LC/H/06/2014
HARARE, 24 OCTOBER 2013 AND
CASE NO LC/H/444/2013
In the matter between:
---------




IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE	JUDGMENT NO LC/H/06/2014

HARARE, 24 OCTOBER 2013 AND		 CASE NO LC/H/444/2013

In the matter between:

EMMANUEL MAPUTSENYIKA					APPELLANT

Versus

PETER KORORO							RESPONDENT

Before The Honourable B S Chidziva	:	Judge

For the Appellant				In Person

For the Respondent				In Person

CHIDZIVA J:

The appellant is appealing against the decision of Honourable Arbitrator Mrs E Nyamanhindi dated 23 May 2013. The arbitrator in her award found that:

The appellant was not constructively dismissed. He resigned of his own volition.

The appellant is not entitled to notice pay since he resigned of his own volition.

The respondent paid all other statutory benefits.

The brief background of this matter is that the appellant was employed as a buyer by the respondent. The appellant alleges that he was send out on forced leave. When he came back he found that his supervisory roles had been delegated to some employees. When he was asked to take up the supervisory roles he refused because he thought that it was a trap. He eventually resigned from work.

The respondent told the court that the appellant came as a new employee to his company. The appellant had been retrenched at Moas Mataruse’s company. He just had a verbal contract of employment with the appellant. He then promoted the appellant because of his experience over the others. He said that he was not happy with the appellant’s performance because he was inflating figures whenever he went to order goods for the shop. The respondent then told him to go on leave so that the respondent could investigate what was really taking place. The respondent told the court that they never demoted the respondent.

The appellant’s grounds of appeal are that:

The Honourable arbitrator failed to appreciate that by reducing the employee’s benefits and failing to increase the salary upon increasing others it was constructively telling employee to go.

The Honourable Arbitrator failed to appreciate that for the supervisor to be given instructions by subordinates at the instance of the employer made the whole continuation of employment unbearable.

The Honourable Arbitrator erred in finding that I did not exhaust domestic remedies yet discussed with the respondent who did not remedy the situation.

The respondent in response has told the court that:

The appellant’s resignation took them by surprise.

The appellant was send on leave so that the respondent could check what was going on.

The appellant was never asked to perform other duties.

The appellant was never demoted.

The appellant refused to give the respondent his account number where his money could be deposited.

It is common cause that:

The appellant received his benefits from ……

The appellant was engaged by the respondent in 2000.

What is to be decided is whether the appellant was constructively dismissed or not.

Venter Long and Convidence Holizhorseen in Labour Relations in South Africa 3rd ed at page 299  defined constructive dismissal as follows:

“Constructive dismissal reforms to the situation where an employers’ actions are such that the employee is effectively forced to leave the job either by formally resignation or by simply not returning to work.”

Appellant in this case was told to go on leave.  Respondent said that he did this to enable him to investigate what was  taking place.  When Appellant came back he was asked to take up his duties but he refusedand he said that he was of the view that there was a trap if he was not happy with his salary he should have pursued other avenues to solve his problems.  The employer had the lawful right to investigate whatever was taking place in his business.  In his letter of resignation Appellant did not state that he was forced to resign.  He also did not state the channel he had tried to follow to address his situation.

in the legent of the foregoing it is the claimant’s view that the appeal lacks merit.

It is therefore ordered that;

The appeal be and is hereby dismissed.