Plaxedes Geza v Bravette Manufacturing Company (Pvt) Ltd

### Preamble
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE
JUDGMENT
NO LC/H/322/13
HELD AT HARARE 13TH JUNE 2013
CASE NO
JUDGMENT NO LC/H/322/13
---------




IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE	     JUDGMENT NO LC/H/322/13

HELD AT HARARE 13TH JUNE 2013		     CASE NO LC/H/123/12

PLAXEDES GEZA						Appellant

BRAVETTE MANUFACTURING				Respondent

COMPANY (PVT) LTD

Before The Honourable G Musariri, President

For Appellant		Mr L Katsiga, Unionist

For Respondent		Ms C.D. Ruredzo, Manager

MUSARIRI, G:

On 20th February 2012 the NEC for the Clothing Industry made a determination.  In terms thereof it dismissed Appellant’s appeal against her dismissal from employment by Respondent.  Appellant then appealed to this Court against the NEC’s determination.

Appellant worked for Respondent as a Production Supervisor in Harare.  In that capacity she had access to labels, trims and zips.  Respondent makes clothing products for Truworths.  The merchandise is identified by labels.  The label is the brand or “signature” of Respondent.  One hundred and nine (109) such labels were found at Appellant’s house. Investigations carried out showed that Appellant and a colleague took private orders to make uniforms for third parties.  The third parties were given the impression that the uniforms were being made by Respondent.  Apparently this is where the labels came in.  They would presumably be sown onto the uniforms to give the impression that they were the branded merchandise of Respondent.

Respondent charged Appellant with misconduct.  The specific charge was theft.  A hearing was conducted.  The disciplinary committee returned a guilty verdict.  The penalty of dismissal was imposed.  Appellant’s case was that the labels were brought to her residence by a fellow work-mate named Valentine. She claimed Valentine took the order to make uniforms for a church choir but sub-contracted the job to her. He brought the labels but she refused to sew them onto the uniforms.  On that basis she pleaded her innocence.

This is a case where the facts speak for themselves.  Appellant works for a reputable clothing company.  She has a responsible position which gives her access to Respondent’s materials including valuable labels.  She enters into a private deal to make uniforms for a choir.  She gets Respondent’s labels from a colleague.  The labels were intended to fool the clients into thinking that their uniforms had been made by Respondent rather than by Appellant.  The discovery of the labels, all 109 of them, at Appellant’s residence was proof of the theft.  Appellant could not give an innocent explanation for her possession of the labels.  Her plea that she refused to sew the labels onto the uniforms is

immaterial.  The fact is that she was found in possession of the stolen labels.  She might not have physically taken the labels from Respondent.  However she received them knowing or suspecting that they were stolen from her employer.  She intended to use the labels for a private deal.  In the circumstances I consider that Respondent was entitled to return a guilty verdict.  Thus the appeal lacks merit and must be dismissed.

Wherefore it is ordered that,

The appeal is hereby dismissed; and

The dismissal from employment of Appellant by Respondent is upheld.

G. MUSARIRI

PRESIDENT