Labour Relations

WHAT IS EMPLOYMENT LAW

These are rules and regulations that govern human conduct and enforceable by the state. A law
may be fair or unfair, just or unjust, acceptable or unacceptable, what is important is to
remember that law is law regardless of its features. The key requirement is that it is enforceable
by the state and also has been passed by a proper authority.

Employment law therefore governs the rights and duties (obligations) between employers and
employees whether individually or collectively, in other words Employment Law simply refers
to roles and regulations that are enforceable by the state which govern employment relations.

Purpose of Employment Law

According to Otto Kahnpoint Freund “The relationship between an employer and an isolated
employee is a relationship between a bearer of power and one who is not a bearer of power. In
its inception it is an act of submission in its operation it is a condition of subordination.
However, much of the submission and subordination maybe consumed by the indispensable
figment of the legal mind known as the contract of employment. The main objective of Labour
Law has been and will always be to act as a counter veiling force to counteract the inequality
of bargaining power which is inherent in the employment relationship”.

Sources of Labour Law

For a law to be a law it must come from a proper authority. There are 4 main sources of Labour
Law:

i) Legislation
ii) Common Law
iii) Custom and Practice
iv) Authoritative texts

Write short notes with practical examples of how these sources of law are utilised in
workplaces. (20)
Legislation

It is also referred to as statutory law i.e. there are laws made directly by the legislature
(Parliament). Laws made by Parliament are embodied in a special document called an Act of
Parliament. There are 2 forms of recognised legislation namely (a) Acts of Parliament i.e. laws
made directly by Parliament and (b) Statutory Instruments i.e. delegated legislation. These
arise where an Act of Parliament specifically delegates its law making powers to a subsidiary
authority such as the President, Minister or Local Authorities. A Statutory Instrument has the
same effect as an Act of Parliament except that it must be consistent with the relevant Act of
Parliament.

Which are the Finance Ministry S.Is released between 2019 to date that have an effect on
employment relationships?

Within legislation there is one superior Act called the Constitution. It is the Supreme Law of
the country and any law inconsistent with it, is ultra vires (Act by a public authority or other
body that goes beyond the limits of the powers conferred on it. Ultra vires acts are invalid) e.g.
Section 22 of Marriage Act (Prohibition of marriage of persons under certain ages: No boy
under age of 18 years and no girl under age of 16 years shall be capable of contracting a valid
marriage except with the written permission of the Minister, which he may grant in any
particular case in which he considers such marriage desirable) vs Constitution (Section 78:
Every person who has attained the age of 18 years has the right to found a family)

Labour Act (Section 18 (1) – Unless more favourable conditions have otherwise been provided
for in any employment contract or in any enactment, maternity leave shall be granted in terms
of this section for a period of 98 days on full pay to a female employee who has served for at
least 1 year vs Constitution (Section 65 (7) Women employees have a right to fully paid
maternity leave for a period of at least 3 months.

Section 65 of the Constitution has an important bearing on labour rights, also Section 4 on
Declaration of rights influences how we interpret the Labour Act.

(Students are encouraged to be familiar with the labour provisions of the constitution)

ACTS OF PARLIAMENT

The principle act is the Labour Act 28:01. It applies to all employers and employees except
for those whose conditions of service are provided for by the Constitution. Public Service
employees are governed by the Public Service Act. Section 3 (3) of the Labour Act excludes
its application to members of the disciplined forces. Section 2A (3) provides that the Labour
Act shall prevail over all other Acts inconsistent with it.

Acts in Pair Masteria

This refers to a situation where two Acts of Parliament purport to regulate the same subject
matter. In such a situation the two Acts must be applied in light of one another especially
where the Labour Act is involved. In Masasi vs PTC the court held that Section 2A of the
Labour Act gave it superiority over the PTC Act (see also i)UMP Zvaitaida RDC vs Chigodo
and another; ii) City of Mutare vs Fanuel Madzima and iii) Chikomba RDC vs Pasipanodya)

DELEGATED LEGISLATION
Delegated legislation is normally in the form of Statutory Instruments made by the Minister in
terms of the enabling act. For instance the Labour Act empowers the relevant Minister to make
regulations. Once such regulation is SI 15 of 2006. An S I must pass 2 tests:

a) It must be intra vires (within the power) the principal Act.

b) Must pass the constitutionality test.

N.B. Collective bargaining agreements qualify as Statutory Instruments.

INTERNATIONAL LABOUR STANDARDS AS A SOURCE OF LAW

International labour standards arise out of ILO conventions and recommendations. ILO
conventions are binding on all member states whereas recommendations are merely guidelines.
International labour standards become part of our law through transformation incorporation
and statutory interpretation. In terms of Section 327 of the Constitution, an International Treaty
(standard) does not bind Zimbabwe until approved by Parliament. In terms of Section 326 when
interpreting legislation a court must adopt any reasonable interpretation that is consistent with
International Law

COMMON LAW
Has three main branches:

1. Judge made law

2. Roman Dutch principles
3. Principles set by judges as they decide cases
While common law is often called case law/judicial precedent or judge made law, it is not an
accurate description. In addition to judicial precedent common law is law that is not legislation
but derived from a collection of legal principles used by judges in applying the law, it is also
part of Roman Dutch law principles as expressed by the Old Dutch jurists. A common law
position can only be altered by an express statutory provision (see Don Nyamande & Another
vs Zuva Petroleum, see also United Bottlers vs Kaduya). Judicial precedent follows the
doctrine of stare decisis (stand by the decision and do not disturb settled points). This means
that earlier decisions of a superior court bind subsequent decisions of an inferior court.

(Labour court is created by a statute therefore matters brought to it are matters contained in the
statute. Only High Court as unlimited jurisdiction)

There are two important principles that must be understood:

1. Ratio desidant i.e. the reasoning made to arrive at a particular decision. It is the ratio
of a decision which binds lower courts.
2. Obita dictum i.e. in passing a judgment the court can make some persuasive statements
but not necessarily the reason behind a judgement. Obita is only persuasive.
3. Trade and Custom (another source of law) (see van Breger vs Jacobs)
4. Authoritative texts. These are the writings of eminent labour law jurists such as Caleb
Mucheche and Lovemore Madhuku.

2nd LESSON:
FORMATION OF A CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT
A contract is a legal agreement between two parties. In employment it must have the following
3 essentials:

1. There must be agreement to render personal services

2. There must be remuneration
3. The right to give orders and the duty to obey (subordination)

It must be noted that an employee is always a natural person whereas an employer can be an
artificial (juristic) or natural person (see Arer vs Mullin, ZRP Board of Trustees vs
Manyangadze)
Legal Formalities
1. Legal capacity. For natural persons to enter into a contract of employment they must
not be:
a) Minors (section 11 of Labour Act)
b) Even if one is a major there are certain legal conditions that may render him/her
handicapped to enter into a contract of employment
(i) Mental illness (need a curator to sign on your behalf)
(ii) Specified persons
(iii) Foreigners (need valid work permit)
** Insolvent persons and women married in community of property
(discuss)
c)With regard to artificial persons the guiding factor is to be found in the certificate of
incorporation, memorandum and articles of association. Where an unregistered
company offers a contract of employment to an individual, the courts may pierce the
corporate veil.

2. There must be consensus ad edem (meeting of the minds). However contract can be
vitiated by duress, undue influence etc. (Section 4A of Labour Act).
3. It must have certainty (should be clearly articulated with terms and conditions stated.)
4. Capable of performance.
NB. A supervening impossibility has the effect of terminating a contract. A
supervening impossibility can be induced by a vis major (an act of God), a causus
fortuitous (an unfortunate incident) (Bareta vs Rhodesian Railways)

Terms of a Contract

Terms can either be express or implied. For express terms see Section 12 of the Labour
Act. Certain terms however can be implied by:
i) Law (eg maternity leave)
ii) By conduct (eg supplying lunch)

(Read on forms/types of employment contracts (fixed term, seasonal, casual, ‘permanent’)

PROBATION
Most employment contracts have a probation clause. It is that initial period of employment
where an employee’s skill, ability and fit is assessed. The probationary period/contract is
different from the subsequent period of employment. In terms of Section 12 (5) of the Labour
Act there can only be one non-renewable probation period. It is one day for casual contracts
and three months for all other contracts. In the Public Service probationary period range
from 6 months to one year. See Section 7 (i) of SI 1 of 2000 Public Service Regulation. See
also Section 7 of SI 17 of 2006 (A member appointed on pensionable conditions of service shall
serve a probationary period of not less than
one year) . At the end of the probation period the employer has two options:

(i) Either to confirm the employee or

(ii) Release the employee

A probation clause has two important consequences, namely:

(a) An employer is entitled to test the employee and refusal to go for assessment is grounds
for termination (See SIRDIC vs Chakuparira)
(b) The contract can be terminated at any time upon giving notice
NB. Compare the case of Kwangari vs CBZ and Quest Motor Corporation vs
Nyamakura

CONTRACTS IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE

It is a contractual clause which restricts an employee’s future freedom to contract. Generally

a restraint clause is meant to:
(a) Restrain an employee from using or divulging company secrets
(b) Restrain an employee from publishing confidential information
(c) Enticing an employer’s customers
(See Section 64 of Constitution)

A restraint clause will have a geographical restraint and a time limit. (see Mangwana
vs Muparadzi)
 In Zimbabwe, restraint clauses are prima facie enforceable, unless if it can be shown
that it is unreasonable. The burden of proof lies with the party seeking to escape the
clause. The following factors must be noted:
(i) The unreasonableness is determined at the time the Court hears the case, not
when the contract was signed
(ii) The Courts can apply the ‘blue pencil test’ i.e. it can sever the unreasonable
parts and enforce the reasonable parts.
(iii) He who alleges must prove
(see also Greendale Hardware & Electrical vs Bangaba, Book vs Davidson)

VARIATION OF A CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT

Once a contract has been concluded /signed, parties are expected to abide by it and refrain
from unilateral variation. There are three possible areas for variation, namely:
(i) Variation of duties
(ii) Variation of benefits
(iii) Variation of place of work

The point to note is that contracts are not cast in stone, however mutually agreed variations are
advisable. In ZUPCO vs Mabhande, the court ruled that variation of duties must not be
outrageous and divorced from the employee’s duties. In this case drivers for ZUPCO went on
strike and the company instructed all driving instructors to perform duties of the drivers.
Mabhande, a driving instructor refused arguing that it amounted to variation of duties. He was
dismissed for insubordination. The Court upheld his dismissal on the basis that there was a
close relationship between the duties of a driver and those of a driving instructor. (see also
Maranatha Ferrochrome vs Nyemba)

Variation of Place of Work

Most contracts of employment have mobility clauses. Generally employers have a right to
determine how and when work is carried out. In Jane Kanonhuwa vs Cottco, Jane was
employed as a Clerk in Sanyati, when she got married she was transferred to Harare on the
basis that her family was in Harare. Sometime later Cottco sought to transfer to her to Manoti,
in Gokwe, she challenged the transfer arguing that it was a disciplinary measure disguised as
an administrative decision. The Court invoked the common law doctrine of legitimate
expectation to set aside the transfer, on the basis that employer had created a legitimate
expectation that the employee will not be moved away from her family.

In the case of Guruva vs Traffic Safety Council of Zimbabwe G was a regional manager based
in Gweru. A decision was made to transfer him to the council’s Masvingo office with effect
from January 2004. G had personal reasons against the transfer which he raised with his
superiors. Having considered G’s objections, the council maintained its earlier decision to
transfer him.

Aggrieved, G sought relief from the courts. The matter went all the way to the SC which ruled
in favour of the TSC of Z. SC held that “It must be accepted that the right to transfer an
employee from one place to another is the prerogative of the employer. T is the employer who
knows better where the services of an employee are required. The employer’s discretion in
determining which employee should be transferred and to which point of the employer’s
operations is not to be readily interfered with except for good cause shown. Good cause in the
circumstances, while not easy to define, would include such matters as unfounded allegations,
victimisation of the employee and any action taken to disadvantage the employee”.

In this instance the TSC convinced the court that it had genuine business reasons to relocate G
and that he (G) had exercised his right to be heard before the final decision to transfer him was
taken. The court rule in the council’s favour.

CONSTRUCTIVE DISMISSAL
Constructive dismissal occurs where an employee terminates his/her employment in response
to the employer’s treatment. Although there is no actual dismissal, the employer’s conduct is
sufficiently ‘bad’ that the employee is entitled to regards themselves as having been dismissed
i.e. the employer’s conduct amounts to repudiation. Constructive dismissal is provided for
under Section 12B (3)a “An employee is deemed to have been unfairly dismissed if the
employee terminated the contract of employment with or without notice because the
employer deliberately made continued employment intolerable for the employee”. In
claiming constructive dismissal the employee must show that he/she had no other option than
to resign. In addition the employee must show that there was no other motive for the
resignation. In Astra Paints vs Kahwa Malaba J.A. as he was then (judge of appeal) ruled that
“constructive dismissal is claimable where an employer has committed a breach which goes to
the root of the contract so as to constitute repudiation, and by reason of that conduct the
employee leaves employment”.

Requirements for Constructive Dismissal (Astra Holdings vs Kahwa)

1. That the employee terminated the contract
2. The reason for termination is that continued employment had become intolerable
3. The employer must be the one who made continued employment intolerable
4. The employee must have raised issue with the employer **(debatable)
5. The reason for termination must have been communicated to the employer
6. The conduct complained of must go to the root of the employment contract
NB. Burden of proof lies with the employee
** What happens if an employee resigns to avoid disciplinary action or where an
employee is given a threat to either resign or loose terminal benefits?
(Fonda vs Mutare Club, Kandomba vs Shades of Black, Pretoria Society for the
Retarded vs Loots, Rainbow Tourism Group vs Nkomo, Moyo vs Bindura Nickel
Corporation)

Look for any other cases on sexual harassment (one stop shop vs mudzingwa)

Dalny mine vs Banda (section 12a labour act),

VICARIOUS LIABILITY OF AN EMPLOYER

An employer is liable for the delicts (civil wrong) committed by his/her employees
provided the employees were acting in the course and within the scope of their
employment. The plaintiff (injured party) does not have to prove fault on the part of
the employer. All he has to prove are:
i) The employee committed a delict
ii) The delict was committed in the course of employment
iii) The employee is employed by the employer

Rationale/(Justification for Doctrine)

i) Deeper pocket justification (employer in better position to pay than employee)
ii) Employer is normally insured
 iii) If employer makes profit through the actions of his employees, he must accept
the losses that come with their actions (see Mungofa vs Muderede)

In Biti vs Minister of State Security a government driver was instructed to take employees
home after work and keep the vehicle safely overnight since he was on call. Some two hours
after he should have finished dropping off the employees he collided with a taxi owned by Biti.
The accident occurred some 5km from the routes he normally would have used. (This case is
concerning the vicarious liability of an employer, it was held that the employer is not
vicariously liable if the employee strays from his duty or is no longer on the prescribed duty).

In Gwatiringa vs Jaravaza and another J was employed as a roving dog handler by a security
company. When on duty J was supposed to wear a uniform. One day he took off his uniform
tethered the dog and drove off in a vehicle owned by the owner of the premises he was
guarding. He was not a licenced driver. Some distance away he crushed into a vehicle owned
by Gwatiringa. Khosa vs Cargo Carriers. K sustained injuries due to the negligence of a lorry
driver. The driver was under specific instructions not to pick up passengers. He gave a lift to
Khosa and charged him for the lift. The court held that there was no deviation from the route,
however there was a digression with regards to the employer’s instructions. It cannot therefore
be said that in so doing he was acting within the sphere of his employment.

In Mungofa vs Muderede the court ruled that where an instruction regulates conduct within the
sphere of employment, the employer is liable. M suffered serious injuries in an accident caused
by the negligence of a driver who was not on the payroll of the bus owner. The normal bus
driver was arrested by the police and the bus crew gave keys to the driver who was then
involved in an accident.

TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT
A contract of employment can be terminated either under statute law or common law.

Common Law Methods

Common law applies where there is no specific or clear statutory provision to the contract. In
Nyamande and another vs Zuva Petroleum, the court held that a statute cannot alter a common
law position without saying so explicitly. The court therefore found that Section 12(b) of the
Labour Act did not abolish an employer’s common law right to terminate on notice, it merely
regulated the exercise of that right.
 1. Mutual agreement
If parties can consent to contract they can also consent to terminate. The agreement to
terminate must be genuine. In practice it is desirable to have the agreement in writing.
In Ruturi vs Heritage Clothing the GM wrote to Ruturi advising him that the company
had decided to terminate his contract. Ruturi was told to leave company premises and
only to return to collect terminal benefits. After collecting terminal benefits, he went
on to claim unfair dismissal. The employer argued that by collecting terminal benefits,
it showed consent by conduct. The Supreme Court held that there was no mutual
agreement. See also Clark Engineering vs Regis Chikozho

2. Supervening Impossibility
An employment contract is terminated where performance has become impossible,
provided the following have been met:
(a) The impossibility must of a permanent nature e.g. illness over a long time see City
of Harare vs Zimucha
(b) The impossibility must not have been caused by the employee or the employer but
must arise from an unfortunate occurrence or an act of God see Bareta vs Rhodesia
Railways, Shamva Gold Mine vs Chiponyera ** case not about termination but
helps define what is an unfortunate occurrence, Girjac Security Services vs
Mudzingwa

3. Expiry of time or task

Where an employee is engaged on a fixed term contract, the contract terminates on expiry of
that contract, no notice is required. See Chikonye and another vs Peterhouse School, ARDA
vs Murwisi, UZ-UCSF vs Shamuyarira

NB. However where an employee continues to report for work, beyond the expiry date, the
contract is deemed to be renewed by conduct (tacit renewal). See Bata Shoe Company vs
Bata Workers Committee

4. Death of employee
 5. Employee Resignations

A resignation is a unilateral act which requires no acceptance on the part of the employer. It
does not need to be in writing. Once it is tendered, the employer cannot refuse to accept. At
common law, he can institute a claim of damages. A resignation is only valid if it is made out
of free will. Resignation made out of duress is constructive dismissal. A resignation letter
cannot be withdrawn without the consent of the employer. See Kadada vs City of Harare,
Pangeti vs GMB

Riva vs NSSA
After disciplinary proceedings where initiated against Riva, he wrote a resignation letter as
follows, “I wish to give three months to terminate my employment with NSSA as per my
contract”. NSSA did not reply immediately. Ten days later, Riva wrote a second letter as
follows, “I have not received confirmation, I accordingly retract my letter of notice to resign
with immediate effect”. NSSA then responded saying, “On a purely without prejudice basis
the authority has considered and agreed to allow you to terminate your services by resignation.
The Authority accepts that your services be terminated immediately, and that you be paid in
lieu of notice”. Riva claimed that his letter was not a resignation, but an offer to resign, which
could either be rejected or accepted by the employer. He had therefore revoked the offer before
acceptance. The Court dismissed his argument on the basis that his letter was one of
resignation, which became effective once tendered. Acceptance was not necessary.
See also Fonda vs Mutare Club
DOCTRINE OF UNFAIR DISMISSAL

Doctrine of unfair dismissal is introduced under Section 12B of the Labour Act. The Act does
not define unfair dismissal but gives circumstances where a dismissal is unfair. These
are provided for under Section 12 B(ii) as follows:
(i) Where the employer fails to show that the dismissal was in terms of a registered
code of conduct
(ii) In the absence of a registered code, the employer fails to show that the dismissal
was in terms of the National Code of Conduct (SI 15 of 2006)
(iii) If the employee resigned because the employer deliberately made continued
employment intolerable Section 12B (3) (a)
(iv) If the employee was on a fixed term contract and had a legitimate expectation of
being re-engaged or another person was engaged in his stead
(v) Where the employee was not afforded the right to address the deciding authority in
mitigation

NB: HR Practitioners must be aware that Section 65 of the Constitution entitles employees to
fair labour practices. Although there is no definition of what are fair labour practices, the courts
normally rely on ILO standards. Under ILO standards, the doctrine has 2 components, namely:

(i) Substantive Fairness

There must be a valid reason for termination which is based on conduct of the
worker or operational requirements. According to the Article 4 of Convention 158:

The employment of a worker shall not be terminated unless there

is a valid reason for such termination connected with the capacity
or conduct of the worker or based on the operational
requirements of the undertaking, establishment or service

(ii) Procedural Fairness

Whether due process has been followed in terms of the natural principles of justice
(see MMCZ vs Mazvimavi) Article 7 of C158 states that should be given the right
to be heard:
 The employment of a worker shall not be terminated for reasons
related to the worker's conduct or performance before he is
provided an opportunity to defend himself against the allegations
made, unless the employer cannot reasonably be expected to
provide this opportunity.

Two principles of natural justice to be observed:

 The principle that the party or parties involved in the matter should be
given the proper opportunity to present their cases before the
administrative decision-maker decides the case. (This is referred to as
the audi alteram partem principle, which means, literally, hear the other
side i.e. hear both sides.)
 The principle that all the administrative decision-makers should be
impartial and unbiased in their deliberations. (This is referred to as the
nemo judex in sua causa principle which means, literally, that no person
may be a judge in his own cause.)

TERMINATION UNDER THE CODE (SI 15)

What is a Code?
It is a document which stipulates company policy, rules, regulations and procedures in
promoting and upholding high levels of discipline in the workplace. It spells out what
constitutes misconduct and the appropriate penalties. SI 15 of 2006 regulates 2 major forms
of termination namely termination for misconduct and termination of fixed term contracts.

Application of the National Code

The National Code or SI 15 applies where there is no registered code. (see Section 12B (2) (b)
(ii). The key question in determining the application of the Code is to ask the boundaries of
the code i.e. does the code apply to misconduct outside the workplace. The answer is yes but
needs to be justified on the basis of having an impact on the company. (Tanganda Tea Co vs
Mvududu – an off duty foreman assaulted a Mozambican national who had gate crashed a
party. His defence was that he was off duty, the party was held outside company premises and
it involved a non-employee. The Supreme Court upheld the application of the code arguing
that there was a nexus between the events and the company. In Makwiro Platinum Mines vs
Paradzai a drunk employee made a nuisance of himself in the company compound and the mine
dismissed him on the following basis:
i. The employee was on duty that weekend, hence booked at the compound
ii. His undisciplined behaviour created a stressful atmosphere which made it impossible
for other employees to sleep, thus adversely affecting the services they were to render
to the employer
iii. He also threatened to ill-treat his subordinate and this had adverse effects on the
subordinate and his work to employer.
The above aggravating factors made the code to apply.

NB: There are situations where there is an in-house code of conduct but for practical reasons
an organisation might resort to the National Code. In Samuriwo vs ZUPCO there was a
ZUPCO code of conduct which applied to all employees regardless of rank. It was therefore
impossible to constitute a hearing for the Managing Director. The Supreme Court accepted the
application of the National Code for practical reasons.
NB: A registered company code of conduct must specify to whom it applies

Misconduct Under SI 15 of 2006

Acts of misconduct are provided for under Section 4 and there are 8 offences:

1. Any act of conduct or omission inconsistent with the fulfilment of the express or
implied conditions of the contract eg. theft, drunkness (see Tregers Plastics vs Sibanda,
Mayounatsva vs Zinwa)
2. Wilful disobedience to a lawful order (ZCTU vs Matsonese, ZUPCO vs Mabhande,
Zim alloys vs Muchojonyi)
3. Wilful and unlawful destruction of company property (Mvere vs Tanganda, ZESA vs
Mare)
4. Theft or Fraud - actual procedure or potential prejudice (ZESA vs Dera, Stanchart vs
Chapuka)
 5. Absence from work for a period of 5 or more working days without leave or reasonable
cause within a year. (Cottco vs Muchirahondo, Mahowa vs Beverley Building Society,
Mwanyisa vs Ministry of Finance (mental illness)
6. Gross incompetence/inefficiency (QMC vs Nyamakura – new billing system, Zimasco
vs Matuku – incomptetence)
7. Habitual and substantial neglect of duty (Marvo Stationery vs Jokwani). It must be
significant
8. Lack of skill which the employee expressly or impliedly held himself to possess (GMB
vs Pangeti – no O levels, Total vs Moyana)

Procedures Under the National Code

Once an employee is suspended for misconduct, an employer has 2 options:

(a) Suspend an employee pending a hearing in terms of Section 6 (1) of SI 15 of

2006
(b) An employer may not suspend the employee but proceed to the hearing eg.
Stealing caught on camera.

Where a decision to suspend has been taken, it must specify whether it’s with or
without benefits (see Nhete vs Mudzi RDC). A suspension which fails to specify
is deemed to be with benefits. From date of suspension the employer has 14
working days to carry out investigations and conduct the hearing

Taking Up Alternative Employment During Suspension

An employee who is on suspension and takes up another job is deemed to have

repudiated their contract. In Tel One vs Zulu – Zulu was suspended on 21/2/1996 – the
suspension was without pay and benefits. During suspension he took a job with Zimnat.
The Supreme Court accepted that he had repudiated his contract with Tel One.
EMPLOYEE SUSPENSION
Once suspended, the employer has 14 working days to conclude both investigations and a
hearing.

HEARING PROCESS

Must give3 working days of notice of hearing (to allow preparation of defence)

Must inform person of right to representation (either by fellow employee, trade union official
or lawyer)

Accused has right to bring own witnesses

Accused can object to composition of panel

Complainant is not part of the hearing committee

In terms of the Code (national code SI 15) a hearing must be conducted within 14 working
days. The accused employee has the following rights (natural principles of justice)

1. Right to notice i.e. an accused employee must be given 3 working days to prepare his
defence
2. The right to appear in person or to be represented by a fellow employee, trade union
official or a lawyer at their own expense. In Barco Chemicals vs Nyikadzino a hearing
went ahead despite the employee’s lawyer requesting for a postponement as he had a
High Court matter to attend. The subsequent hearing was ruled invalid. However in
Ramani vs NSSA the employee’s lawyer continuously asked for postponements until a
hearing was held in his absence. The court upheld the hearing.
3. The right to be heard. This is a fundamental right which when denied renders the
proceedings invalid. (see Mugambi vs Chipinge RDC).
4. The right to call witnesses and cross examine those brought in against him.
5. The right to address the committee in mitigation before a penalty is imposed (see Sec
12(b) )
6. The nemo judex principle i.e. no man shall be judge in his own cause (see Muza vs
Batanai Supermarkets)

Composition of the Disciplinary Committee/Authority

In terms of SI 15 an organisation has 2 options:

To conduct a hearing via a disciplinary committee or a disciplinary authority. Where the option
of a committee is chosen, the composition must be in terms of the code, i.e. there must be a
Chairperson, an equal representation from management and workers. (Decisions of committee
reached by majority, if there is a tie, Chairperson has casting vote) The code also has an option
of a disciplinary authority, who can either be a single person, appointed as such either internally
or externally. In MMCZ vs Mazvimavi an HR Manager sat in a hearing as an HR official, but
was actively participating in committee deliberations. The Hearing was held invalid on account
of improper composition.

NB: In most cases when it comes to composition issues of bias emerge. It must be noted that
institutional bias is always inherent (see Musariri vs Anglo American). In general the
following should not be members of the hearing committee:

a) The complainant
b) Witnesses
c) Investigators
d) Those with conflict of interest

Procedural Irregularities
Not all irregularities shall vitiate disciplinary proceedings. An irregularity must be gross in
order to vitiate proceedings. In Dalny Mine vs Banda (influenced subsequent cases eg. Chiku
Mensa, Nyahuma) it was held that Labour matters must as far as possible NOT be decided on
technicalities. In Air Zimbabwe v Chiku Mensa it was held, “A person guilty of misconduct
should not escape the consequences of his misdeeds because of a failure to conduct
disciplinary proceedings properly. He should escape such consequences because he is
innocent”.

This is not to say proceedings must be marred by gross violations. The following irregularities
can vitiate proceedings:

i) Denial of the right to representation

ii) Violation of the nemo judex principle (Heritage Insurance vs Mabage, Muza vs
Batanai Supermarkets)
iii) Denial of the right to be heard
iv) Inadequate notice
In order to succeed on a claim of a irregularity, an employee must show that he/she suffered
material prejudice as a result of the irregularity. (see Nyahuma vs Barclays Bank, see also
Green vs NSSA Appeals Committee, MBCA vs Dube)

Conduct of the Hearing

The Chairperson is responsible for moderating proceedings, and setting the direction of the
hearing. The Chairperson must ask the accused the following:
i) Has he received adequate notice
ii) Is he comfortable with the panel
iii) Do they understand the charge
iv) Do they have representation, if not do they want to proceed on their own
v) Do they have witnesses
vi) What is their plea
vii) Ask preferred language

Where an employee has pleaded not guilty, the complainant is invited to present their case.
(No trial by ambush, give all evidence to employee at time of notice to hearing). The
complainant must produce evidence and lead his/her witnesses if he has any. At the close of
his case, the accused is given a chance to outline his defence, cross examine the complainant
and his witnesses and also lead their own witnesses (they are also subject to cross examination
by the complainant). Members of the panel are allowed to ask questions for clarifications but
they must not do so either on behalf of complainant or accused. Both parties must be given a
chance to make closing submissions.

Standard of Proof in Hearings:

The standard of proof in hearings is on a balance of probabilities. Even if an employee is

facing a charge that is also criminal eg. theft, fraud, the standard of proof still remains on a
balance of probabilities. It is therefore possible for an employee to be found not guilty in a
criminal court but guilty in the hearing. (see ZESA vs Dera). (Early Bird Farm vs
Moyo/Sithole)
Evidence in Disciplinary Proceedings:
Section 90A (i) of the Labour Act provides that the Labour Court shall not be bound by the
strict rules of evidence and a Presiding Officer is given the leeway to ascertain facts in a manner
he thinks fit. Rule 12 (ii) of the Labour Court rules (SI 59 of 2006 read act) provides that, “the
court shall in so far as appears appropriate, avoid formality in its proceedings and may in where
circumstances warrant it depart from any enactment or rule relating to the admissibility of
evidence…”

Hearsay Evidence in Hearings:

Generally hearsay evidence is inadmissible (see FC Platinum vs Raman Gumbo).

Circumstantial Evidence:
This is evidence used to prove other facts, as a result of inferences made from the existence of
known facts. It is a logical conclusion that when taken cumulatively makes a complete chain
where the only possible conclusion is the guiltiness of the accused (see State vs Anochili) The
inferences made by the disciplinary committee must be consistent with known facts and
exclude the innocence of the accused.

Single Witness Evidence:

It is possible to find someone guilty on the basis of a single witness’s testimony. The only
requirement is that the witness must be credible.

Similar Fact Evidence”

(read State vs Banana)
The requirement for admissibility of similar fact evidence is that its probative value outweighs
its prejudicial effect. The old standard used to be that the facts had to be strikingly similar that
it would be an affront to common sense to assume that the similarity is a mere coincidence.
(see Mood Music Publishing vs de Wolf)

Lay Opinion Evidence:

(see Section 21 and 22 of the Civil Evidence Act) ** It must be based on observations and is
generally acceptable in matters of identification, apparent age and temperament.
Expert Opinion Evidence
Expertise may be obtained through qualification or experience. Where an expert has given a
view he has to give reasons. The accused is entitled to notification that an expert will be called
in so that he can also bring his own expert for rebuttal purposes.

Previous Consistent Statements

These are generally inadmissible and are used to rebut allegations of recent fabrications,
consistence or in sexual offences. A previous consistent statement is a statement made by a
witness at some prior occasion.

MAKING A DETERMINATION
After hearing witness testimonies, interrogations and cross examinations as well as closing
submissions, the hearing committee must make a determination i.e. its verdict and penalty. The
determination must be based on evidence adjured during the hearing. Where the accused is
found not guilty (charge not proven), the employee must be removed from suspension and re-
instated see Section 6 (2)b of SI 15. Where the accused has been found guilty, he must give
his mitigation before penalty (see Section 7 of SI 15 and Section 12B of Labour Act). The
penalty must be consistent with the charge. In Chitambo vs ZESA C addressed a press
conference without management authority where she threatened to switch off the whole
country. She was charged with various offences including disclosing classified information.
She was found guilty on the charge of disclosing classified information and acquitted on a more
serious charge of threatening to switch off the whole country. The penalty of dismissal was
found to be inconsistent with the proceedings (see ZB vs Manyarara)

*Previous warnings, based on progression (Zimalloys vs Muchohonyi)

In Air Bus vs Webb, W was dismissed for misusing company time i.e.washing his car when he
ought to have been working. This was changed to final warning valid for 12 months on appeal.
Three weeks after the 12 months he was found watching TV on a night shift together with 4
colleagues. The 4 colleagues were given final warnings but W was dismissed, on the basis of
a previous expired warning. W’s lawyers argued that he had been treated differently but the
court ruled that there was no differential treatment as the other 4 were first time offenders and
he was a habitual offender.

Employer Discretion in Imposing Dismissal

* Once the employer has taken the view that the misconduct goes to the root, dismissal may be
imposed. (see Mashonaland Turf Club vs Mutangadura, Innscor vs Chimoto, ZB vs
Manyarara, Ziscosteel vs Keche)

Appeals
Zinwa vs Mwoyounotsva
A person aggrieved with the decision of the hearing committee may appeal within 7 working
days. (see Section 8(iii). The Appeals Officer has 14 days to make a determination. People
who sat in the hearing must not sit in the Appeals Committee. An Appeals Officer cannot
interfere with the findings of the committee unless those findings were grossly unreasonable in
the sense that no person applying his mind to the same facts would have reached the same
conclusion, in other words the committee had taken leave of its senses or the decision was so
outrageous in its defiance of logic (see also Baros and another vs Chimuponda – one cannot
substitute discretion of a committee with their own discretion)
NB before appealing outside the company, an employee must exhaust all internal remedies.

Attempt to answer these questions:

1. What is the effect of an improper composition of a hearing committee?
2. Can the Code be applied in cases involving unlawful collective job action?
3. What happens where proceedings are nullified?

Splitting Of Charges
Splitting of charges is not permissible i.e. an employer should not bring multiple charges
against a worker in what is really a single offence. The test to be used in splitting of charges
is a 2 stage one:
(i) The single intent test or continuous transaction test
(ii) Same evidence test

In Tshangane v Speciality Metals an employee was absent from work on the 23rd of December,
the 2nd and 3rd of January, in addition he was also late for work on the 24th of December. When
he was asked he gave an explanation which was later found to be false. He was served with a
charge sheet with the following charges:

1. Being late for work without reason or permission

2. Being absent from work without reason or permission
3. Committing a breach of good faith to the company

On charge 1 he was given a written warning valid for 6 months. On charge 2 he was given a
final warning valid for 12 months. On the 3rd charge he was dismissed. The court accepted
that the first 2 charges appear fair as they happened on separate occasions. However, there was
no need for the 3rd charge, as it amounted to splitting of charges.

REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR TERMINATION/DISMISSAL

A remedy is a way of correcting a wrong. In Labour law remedies are provided for under both
statute and common law.

Remedies available to the employee

Reinstatement:
This is the primary remedy for unfair dismissal. It implies restoring the employee to
the status quo ante unfair dismissal i.e. the position the employee occupied before the
unfair dismissal. Reinstatement may mean:
a) Restoration of the employee to his previous position with full benefits effective
from date of unfair dismissal
b) Restoration of the employee without benefits. A Court must be clear whether a
reinstatement order is with or without benefits. It cannot be implied to be with
benefits.
c) Reinstatement is supposed to be from date of unfair termination, however there may
be circumstances where reinstatement is awarded from date of judgement.
d) At common law the employer is not compelled to accept reinstatement, he must be
given an option to pay damages. (see Art Corporation v Moyana, Hama v NRZ)

NB In BEC v Mtetwa the Supreme Court seemed to suggest that reinstatement may be forced
upon an employer depending on the circumstances such as:

i) Size of the employer

ii) Level of the employee
 iii) Employee’s preferences
iv) Blameworthiness of the employer or employee

In all the above situations, the employer bears the burden of proof that reinstatement is no
longer tenable. (Muringi v Air Zimbabwe. See also sec 89 (2) (c) iii )

Tutorial: Compare the position of the law on reinstatement as expressed in ZUPCO v

Chisvo and in BHP v Takawira

In Public service reinstatement is almost always a given (see Chairman of the PSC v
Marumahoko)

Damages:
Damages means compensation for lost income and loss of future earnings arising from
premature termination. (see Ambali v Bata Shoe Co.) In Zimbabwe damages are
awarded for the following reasons:
i) Income lost from date of unfair termination to date of judgement (backpay)
ii) Premature termination of employment (see Kuda Madyara v Globe Phoenix)
iii) Special damages (punitive damages)

Principles of quantification of damages

i) Backpay. This is calculated as earnings the employee would have earned
between date of unfair termination and date of judgement. (see Muzivi v First
Mutual)
ii) Damages for premature termination should be paid with due consideration to
reasonableness of finding alternative employment
iii) An employee has a duty to mitigate his loss (the Ambali principle) ** what
is the difference between an employee who takes employment during
suspension and one who takes employment after dismissal)
iv) Evidence must be lead to quantify damages claimed (see RBZ v Siwawa, Ruturi
v Heritage Clothing)
v) Interest is payable on damages (see Central African Batteries v John Mhangu)

Damages are also payable for unfair labour practices (see Sec 4(iv) of L.A., Sec 5 (iv) L.A.)
Interdict
This is found in the High Court and it is an order compelling another party to act in a
specific manner or refrain from acting in a particular manner.

Declaratory Order
These are court orders which declare the correct position of the law and a party’s rights.
(see Ngulube v ZESA, Agribank v Machingaifa)

Criminal Prosecution
See Sec 11(v), 6 (ii), 73 (ii) and 82 (iii) of Labour Act.

Remedies available to the Employer

1. Dismissal
2. Damages (see Delta v Gurupira)
3. Interdicts and declaratory orders
4. Covenants in restraint of trade
5. Criminal prosecution

End of Lesson 2
LESSON 3

RIGHT TO STRIKE IN ZIMBABWE

Right to strike in Zimbabwe provided for in Section 65 (iii) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe.
However Section 65 provides the first restriction to the right it gives, namely that the right is
not available to security services and that a law may be passed to restrict this right in order to
maintain essential services (that Law is the Labour Act). The Constitution further restricts this
right under Section 86 and 87. The Labour Act does not refer to a strike per ser but uses the
term ‘collective job action’ (see Section 2 for definition of collective job action).

A strike is determined by reference to this definition, in Securitas v Dangirwa & Matara the
Labour Court ruled that there was no strike action because its duration was too brief, however
this position has been overturned by the Supreme Court in the following cases Rutunga v
Chiredzi Town Council, ZB v Manyarara.

The right to strike in Zimbabwe does not arise in certain situations, namely:
i) In disputes of rights i.e. no party can strike in pursuance of a dispute of right (see
Ruturi & others v Chiredzi Town Council)
ii) In essential services. In terms of Section 102 of the Labour Act parties involved in
essential services are barred from striking. Essential services are defined widely
and the Minister has powers to declare any industry as such (see SI 137 of 2003)
iii) Where the issue in dispute is already covered in an existing CBA.
iv) Where a dispute has been referred to arbitration (see Chisvo & Others v Aurex)

PROCEDURE FOR A LAWFUL STRIKE

The procedure for a lawful strike is provided for under Section 104 of the Labour Act. It must
be emphasised that the right to strike is only available outside essential services and in cases
of a dispute of interest. The procedure for a lawful strike is as follows:-
1. Need a certificate of no settlement i.e. all disputes in Zimbabwe are subject to
conciliation. It is only after the failure of conciliation that parties can resort to collective
job action. Where conciliation has failed, the Conciliating Officer issues a certificate
of no settlement.
NB. The Conciliation Officer has 30 days to try to conciliate
 2. Secret ballot. In terms of Section 104 (iii) e no strike may be undertaken in the absence
of an agreement of the workers concerned voting by secret ballot (Moyo J v Zvoma)
3. Notice requirement. A party intending to strike must give 14 days’ notice. The notice
must be served on the relevant NEC, employer and the Trade Union. For a notice to be
valid, it must:
i) Be in writing. In Moyo v Central Africa Batteries failure to give express notice
was held fatal
ii) Must specify the reasons (grounds), time and place. In Mukundwi and 42 others
v Chikomba RDC the notice period was held to include Saturdays and Sundays,
however the LC took a different view in Chandler v 25 named employees. In
both these cases the Court did not to put to rest the issue of whether a fresh
notice is required where a strike has not been undertaken after 14 days
4. There must be approval by a registered Trade Union.

Exemptions from the above Procedure

There are 2 limited circumstances where workers can embark on a strike without following the
above procedure. This is provided for under Section 104 (4). The first circumstance is where
there is an occupational hazard which poses an immediate threat to the health and safety of
employees. The Court has emphasised that the strike action must be proportional to the level
of the hazard. What constitutes a reasonable hazard is debatable and a matter of interpretation.
In Mhosva & others vs Mineral Development Corporation the LC rejected an argument by
workers that travelling in an open truck in winter constituted an immediate threat to their health
and safety.
The second circumstance is where there is an immediate threat to the existence of a worker’s
committee or registered trade union. In First Mutual Life Assurance v Murwisi, managerial
employees formed their own workers committee which was opposed by management. The
matter was referred .to the Labour Officer who in turn referred it to the Labour Tribunal (now
Labour Court). Pending determination by the Tribunal, management re-graded the managerial
employees into non –managerial employees. Workers went on strike and they were dismissed.
The SC held that the dismissal was unfair and taken together with the re-grading exercise
constituted a threat to the existence of a worker’s committee, thus employees were entitled to
go on strike without following the procedure in Section 104.
NB in ZESA v Mare it was held that Workers Committee members are not a law unto
themselves. They are employees, subject to the control of the employer. See also Lancashire
Steel v Dube (important, it allows singling out strikers)

SHOW CAUSE ORDERS AND DISPOSAL ORDERS

A show cause order is a form of an interdict available to an employer to stop or break a pending
Strike. This is normally given in terms of Section 106 (i) where the Minister acting on his own
or on the application by any person affected or likely to be affected by the unlawful strike issues
an order to the responsible person to show cause why a disposal order must not be given.

To best understand a show cause order one must know what a disposal order is. A disposal
order is an order given by the Labour Court, directing that a strike be terminated, postponed or
suspended.

The Labour Court may also issue instructions as it sees fit in the disposal order. Before a
disposal order is given, the striking employees must be given a chance to present their case and
show why a disposal order must not be given. (Read Section 110, 107 and 106 of LA)

Liability of Striking Workers

1. Section 109 provides for criminal sanctions against striking employees
2. Section 108 (4) makes it clear that the no work no pay principle applies even if a
strike is a lawful one
3. Section 109(6) provides for punitive damages against striking employees
4. Employees are delictualy liable
NB The only protection is under Section 108 (2) which says that participation in a
lawful job action shall not constitute breach of contract or a delict (civil wrong)

Discipline and Dismissal of Striking Workers

Dismissal of striking employees must be procedurally fair. A hearing is needed. While it is
admitted that participation in an unlawful collective job action goes to the root, natural
principles of justice must be observed. In Design Incorporated v Chipangura employees were
dismissed without a hearing because the Code provided for “instance dismissal” for
participation in an illegal strike. The Supreme Court declared such dismissal unfair because
there was no right to be heard.
DISPUTE SETTLEMENT IN ZIMBABWE

What is a dispute?
Section 2 of the Labour Act defines a dispute as “a dispute relating to any matter concerning
employment which is governed by this Act”. Given that the Act does not “really define” the
term dispute academic definitions must be applied i.e. a dispute is any disagreement over
matters concerning employment. The statutory definition is important for the reason that it
limits the scope of what is a dispute i.e. a dispute must be related to employment or issues
governed by the Labour Act itself. In Madinda Ndlovu v Highlanders FC, Ndlovu was
employed as the club coach but the club fell into financial difficulties and failed to honour its
duty towards Ndlovu. The total amount owed was acknowledged through an acknowledgement
of debt. It was held that an action based on an acknowledgement of debt is a distinct cause of
action arising from a liquid document. It is not a labour dispute per se even though the
underlying base is employment. In PG Industries v Machawira Machawira resigned from
employment and sought to buy her company car from PG. In terms of the company policy
Machawira had the right of first refusal. PG did not want to sell. The issue to be determined
was whether there was a valid contract of sale. This meant that this was not a labour dispute.
(see also Design Incorp v )

Classification of Disputes
Disputes can either be individual or collective, however the statutory definition does not make
a distinction. Statutory definition simply provides for disputes, does not make a distinction.

Dispute of Right v Dispute of Interest

See Section 2 for definitions

Prescription of Labour Disputes

(see Prescription Act)
In terms of Section 94 no Labour Officer shall entertain any dispute or unfair labour practice
unless it was referred to him or otherwise came to his attention within 2 years from date when
it first arose. (see City of Gweru v Munyari) i.e. where prescription applies the Labour Officer
has no jurisdiction. However in Kunere vs Lobels Biscuits admission in a hospital for a long
period was held to give a claimant right to approach a Labour Officer even after 2 years.
Methods of Dispute Settlement
1. Conciliation
Section 93 (i) provides that “A Labour Officer to whom a dispute has been referred or
to whose attention it has come, shall attempt to settle it through conciliation …” The
Act does not define conciliation hence we must rely on academic definitions.
Conciliation is compulsory for all disputes whatever their nature (whether collective
or individual, rights v interests) Parties can however avoid the route of conciliation
through an agreement to go to voluntary arbitration

Who is the Conciliator?

Normally the Labour Officer is the conciliator. This is a public official employed by
the government. In NECs the conciliator is the Designated Agent. Conciliation
proceedings are informal but natural principles of justice must be observed. (see
Majora v Kuwirirana Bus Service) i.e.:
i) Conciliator must not be biased
ii) Must act impartially and even handedly
iii) Must disclose conflict of interest if any
iv) Must afford both parties reasonable opportunities to make representations
v) Right to representation

Conciliation Period

The conciliation period is given 30 days and if the dispute has been settled by
conciliation the Labour Officer must record it in writing under the prescribed form (LR
1) called Certificate of Settlement. Before amendment Act No 5 and the 30 day period
had expired, the Labour Officer had to issue a certificate of no settlement but now after
issuing a certificate of no settlement and consulting a Labour Officer who is senior to
him/her the Labour Officer has the following options:

a) Refer the dispute to compulsory arbitration if it is a dispute of interest and parties

are involved in essential services. (Sec 98 then applies)
b) Where parties agree refer to voluntary arbitration if it is dispute of interest
c) Make a ruling on a finding on a balance of probabilities if the dispute is a dispute
of right to which he can:
I) Find the employer guilty of an unfair labour practice
 II) Direct the offending party to cease the infringement including payment of
monies or damages
NB: The Labour Officer will then make an affidavit to be submitted to the
Labour Court in terms of Sec 92(v)
Read SI 217 of 2003 (conciliation)

ARBITRATION

Arbitration involves adjudication by a third party whose decision disposes of the dispute. In
Labour the Arbitrator’s decision is known as the Arbitral award. There are 2 types of
arbitration in our system namely voluntary and compulsory arbitration.

Compulsory arbitration
It arises after the failure of conciliation and subsequent issuing of a certificate of no settlement.
It is automatic in the case of a dispute of interest and parties are involved in essential services.
In respect of disputes of interest outside essential services, compulsory arbitration arises where
parties agree (Section 93 (5) b) In the absence of an agreement the Labour Officer may exercise
his discretion to refer the matter for compulsory arbitration. (Section 93 (5) c). Before referral
for compulsory arbitration Section 98 (3) must be complied with. (See also Section 98 (4)

Who is the Arbitrator in Compulsory Arbitration?

An Arbitrator is appointed from a list of arbitrators prepared by the Ministry of Labour. A
Minister may appoint independent arbitrators in terms of Section 98 (6) from the following 2
groups:
a) Any Labour Officer or Designated Agent whom the Minister considers experienced and
qualified
b) Any other person considered qualified and experienced

Does the Arbitration Act apply in Compulsory Arbitration?

Section 98 (2) provides that “subject to this section, the Arbitration Act shall apply ….”. The
main effect of this provision is that any matter not covered by Section 98 of the Labour Act,
the Arbitration Act applies. For instance given that Section 98 deals with appointment of an
Arbitrator this means that the Arbitration Act will not apply when it comes to appointment of
Arbitrators under compulsory Arbitration. On the other hand, Section 98 does not deal with
the conduct of the hearing, the Arbitration Act therefore applies. The conduct of the hearing
shall be as agreed by the parties in their terms of reference. Parties can agree to proceed by
way of record or through a oral hearing. (arbitration process conduct - statement of application,
response, replication, then arbitrator’s decision)

Read on

1. Enforcement of arbitral awards

2. Effect of reference to compulsory arbitration
3. Appeal against compulsory arbitration (question of law vs question of fact) can only
appeal on question of law, question of fact – its final cant appeal (Muzuva v United
Bottlers)
4. Difference between an appeal and a review
5. Voluntary arbitration – who is the arbitrator?

End of lesson 3

Assignment: Due 4 September 2021 by 1500hrs

Tapiwa a butcher man was caught on camera stealing from the cold room, a 5kg packet of
sausages which he put in a satchel. He left the room and the next day he did not report for duty.
On his return the supervisor asked him about the incident which he denied. Note that upon his
engagement as an employee, Tapiwa signed that he will abide to all policies and procedures
set by the organisation.

You are the Designated Officer, how would handle the case. In support of your answer you
have to attach a charge sheet. (40)

Assume a disciplinary hearing was conducted and Tapiwa was found guilty. As a group prepare
a determination and submit it the next Friday after your assignment submission.