Paula Kachidza v Parirenyatwa Group of Hospitals

### Preamble
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE
JUDGMENT
LC/H/340/2016
HARARE, 10 MAY 2016
CASE NO.
---------




IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE	 JUDGMENT NO. LC/H/340/2016

HARARE, 10 MAY 2016				            CASE NO. LC/H/494/14

AND 27 MAY 2016

In the matter between:-

PAULA KACHIDZA								Appellant

And

PARIRENYATWA GROUP OF HOSPITALS				Respondent

Before Honourable B.S. Chidziva, Judge

For Appellant		Mr K. Masasire (Legal Practitioner)

For Respondent		Mr C. T. Gutu (Legal Officer)

CHIDZIVA, J:

Appellant a registered General Nurse at Parirenyatwa was charged for stealing 21 Metronidazole tablets which had been prescribed for a patient who had since been discharged.  She was found guilty by the Disciplinary Committee and was discharged from employment.  The Appellant appealed to the Health Services Board and the Board partially upheld the appeal and ruled as follows,

“(i)	The determination that Appellant is guilty be upheld.

(ii)	The discharge penalty be set aside and be substituted with a fine equivalent to one month’s salary and a reprimand valued for five years.

(iii)	That Appellant be transferred to another station.

(iv)	The period between discharge and resumption of duty be treated as leave without pay.”

The Appellant has appealed against penalty number 3 and 4.

The Appellant’s grounds of appeal are that,

The Health Services Board’s penalty was too excessive, unreasonable and unfair,

The Health Service Board erred and misdirected itself on a point of law in ruling that the period between a discharge and resumption of duty be treated as leave without pay yet the Appellant has to be reinstated back to his original position and was not on leave or apply one.

The Respondent in response submitted that,

There is no reason why the Appellant should be paid for the period between the date of discharge and the date of reinstatement following her appeal to the Respondent.

Appellant was found guilty of misconduct on theft allegation which is a serious offence.

It is common cause that,

Appellant was found guilty of a serious offence which goes to root of the contract.

It took Appellant a year to be reinstated and this followed the intervention of the Ministry of Health.

Appellant stole medication that had been prescribed for a patient who had been discharged.

The Appellant has been convicted of a serious offence which goes to the root of the contract.  She breached the trust that was imposed on her by the employer.  Dismissal was the most appropriate penalty.  Therefore a penalty of transfer and non-payment of salary until resumption of duty is reasonable.  A penalty of transfer is provided for in section 50 (1) is of the Code.  Recovery of remuneration is also provided for under section 50 (1) (g) of the Code of Conduct.

Recovery of remuneration is also provided for under Section 50 (1) (g) of the Code of Conduct.

Since the decision of the Health Services Board the Appellant has not been transferred.  The Legal Practitioner Mr Masasire indicated that Appellant had not been transferred due to lack of vacancies.  If the Ministry’s advertising vacancies for nurses one assumes that there are vacancies even in rural areas where Appellant can be transferred to.  The Appellant has been treated with great lenience.

This appeal has been on abuse of court process by the Appellant.  She should be at home because of the nature of the offence that she committed.  Appellant in fact should be grateful to the Health Services Board for imposing such a lenient penalty on law.  Her colleagues who committed similar offences have been dismissed and are being dismissed from employment.

To that end therefore it is ordered that the appeal be and is hereby dismissed with costs.

Musoni Law Chambers, appellant’s legal practitioners