Tafara Mangundu v Zimbabwe United Passenger Company Limited

### Preamble
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE
JUDGMENT NO LC/H/18/2024
HARARE, 11 JANUARY, 2024
CASE NO LC/H/654/23
29 JANUARY 2024
---------


IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE

HARARE, 11 JANUARY, 2024

29 JANUARY 2024

JUDGMENT NO LC/H/18/2024 CASE NO LC/H/654/23

TAFARA MANGUNDU	APPELLANT

ZIMBABWE UNITED PASSENGER COMPANY LMITED	RESPONDENT

Before the Honourable G. Musariri, Judge:

For Appellant	Mr S. Ndoro, Unionist

For Respondent	Ms S. Zvomuya, Officer

MUSARIRI, J:

At the onset of oral argument in this Court, Respondent raised an objection which Applicant opposed. Appellant’s appeal was signed for by D. Chiwara of the National Union For the Plastics, Pharmaceuticals, Fertilizers, Chemicals, Batteries Manufacturing and Allied Industries of Zimbabwe. However Respondent operates in the transport industry. Its employees are represented by the trade union for the transport operator’s industry. On that basis respondent objected to the representation of appellant (its employee) by the plastics and allied industries union. In response, Appellant relied on Section 92 of the Labour Act Chapter 28:01 which provides that,

“A party to a matter before the Labour Court may appear in person or be represented and appear by-

……; or

an official or employee of a registered trade union or employer’s organisation of which the party is a member; or

(c) …..”

(The underlining is for emphasis)

The same provision is reproduced as Rule 25(1) a of the Labour Court Rules S.I. 150 of 2017. Appellant’s representative explained that he is a member of the plastics union by virtue of paying subscription to a union of his choice.

The Court was not referred to case law on all fours with the present matter. However reference was made to the case of

Zibawu v Beverley HH 63-07

where Patel J (as he then was) opined

“ As I read these provisions the obligations and restrictions imposed by them do not prevent any employee from joining any trade union of his choice, including one that is not registered for the industry in which he is employed. Nor do they preclude the employee from paying his union dues to that union….Most importantly there is nothing to hinder the union itself from applying to extend its scope of coverage to include any industry in which its members are employed so as to enable it to effectively represent their interests in that industry.”

This Court’s reading of the Zibawu case is that whilst an employee can join a union outside his employer’s industry, that union cannot effectively represent the employee unless and until its coverage is lawfully extended upon application. The plastics’ union’s coverage not having been extended to cover the transport operators’ sector it follows that it cannot act as a representative of an employee of a transport operator in this Court.

The conclusion is consonant with the literal and purposive interpretation of the relevant provisions of the afore quoted Act and Rules. The proceedings having been instituted by the wrong party they are essentially a nullity as argued by Respondent.

Wherefore it is ordered that,

The appeal be and is hereby struck off as being fatally defective for having been instituted by the wrong person; and

Each party shall

J-U-D-G-E