Nyarai Chasweka v Rufaro Supermarket

### Preamble
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE
JUDGMENT NO. LC/H/128/16
HELD AT HARARE ON 4th NOVEMBER, 2015
CASE NO.
JUDGMENT NO. LC/H/128/16
---------




IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE	   JUDGMENT NO. LC/H/128/16

HELD AT HARARE ON 4th NOVEMBER, 2015     CASE NO. LC/H/238/14

AND 4TH MARCH, 2016

In the matter between:-

NYARAI CHASWEKA							    Appellant

And

RUFARO SUPERMARKET						    Respondent

Before the Honourable Mhuri, J.

For Appellant	:	Mr Danda (Secretary for Legal Affairs - ZFTU)

For Respondent	:	Mr M Rusono (Human Resources Manager)

MHURI J.

This is an appeal against an arbitral award.

The term of reference which the arbitrator was to consider was,

“whether or not the employee is entitled to a retrenchment package and the remedy thereof.”

To determine this term, the Arbitrator considered both parties submissions.  It was not an issue that the shop Appellant worked in, was closed due to non-viability of the shop.  It was also not in dispute that Respondent offered Appellant alternative jobs which she refused to take.

From the documents placed before the Arbitrator, the Arbitrator found that Appellant accepted her benefits by endorsing her signature on the agreement.  The Arbitrator found that the fact that Appellant signed meant that she was in agreement with whatever information was on the document.

It is clear that the Arbitrator was alive to the principle of caveat subscriptor.  She found that Appellant could not allege unprocedural retrenchment when she unilateral (sic) signed for the exit package.

Filed of record are documents reflecting calculations of moneys paid to and signed for by Appellant on which it is endorsed

“no claim/appeal shall be pursued, after payment of this final settlement of monies due.”

The first was signed on the 12th September, 2013 and the second which included severance pay was signed on the 1st November, 2013.

Faced with this evidence, the Arbitrator was correct in holding that Appellant is to be bound by her signature.  It is also noted that Appellant rejected other job alternatives offered by Respondent and opted for an exit package which was calculated in the manner she agreed to as a final settlement.  If she made a bad deal, she has no one to blame but to live with that bad deal.

See the case of

VIMBAI MBISVA V RAINBOW TOURISM GROUP SC 32/09

the facts of which are almost similar to this one.  These were:-

“Vimbai was dismissed by the Hotel.  He reported the matter to the Union and a labour dispute ensued.  Negotiations aimed at settling the dispute commenced between the Union and the hotel.  The Union proposed that Vimbai be given a severance package equivalent to his salary for a period of two-and-a- half years, but the Hotel rejected the proposal.  As he badly needed some money Vimbai went to the Hotel on 25 January 2005 and signed the MOA, declaring that the labour dispute had been settled on the terms and conditions set out therein.  In my view, that declaration is binding on him.”

Consequently the appeal is to be dismissed.  It is ordered that it be and is hereby dismissed.

ZFTU – Appellant’s representatives