Zimbabwe: Supreme Court Ruling Opens Direct Labour Court Route for Dismissed Workers

The Supreme Court has ruled that workers dismissed under registered employment codes can appeal directly to the Labour Court without first going through a labour officer, settling a legal dispute triggered by the dismissal of a Delta Beverages machine operator for working under the influence of alcohol.

The landmark ruling dismissed an appeal by Delta Beverages (Private) Limited, which had argued that former employee Mufaro Muchetu was required to exhaust a statutory remedy by first approaching a labour officer before taking his dismissal dispute to the Labour Court.

The Supreme Court held that the two routes under sections 92D and 101(5) of the Labour Act are complementary, meaning an aggrieved employer or employee can choose between appealing directly to the Labour Court or approaching a labour officer for conciliation.

"The appeal envisaged under s 101(5) creates a gateway to the conciliation process by a labour officer," the court said.

"Without doubt, the two provisions provide redress to an aggrieved party who may choose to employ one or the other of the two remedies."

The case arose after Muchetu, who was employed as a machine operator at Delta Beverages' Southerton plant in Harare, was dismissed following allegations that he had operated machinery while under the influence of alcohol.

According to the judgment, the incident occurred on November 8, 2024, when Muchetu was working in the Packaging Department.

He was tested for alcohol at the end of his shift and was found to have a high concentration of alcohol in his blood.

Delta Beverages alleged that his conduct created a safety risk because he was operating machinery while under the influence.

He was charged under the company's 2003 Employment Code of Conduct with an alcohol and drug offence involving being incapable of working due to alcohol or drug consumption.

Following disciplinary proceedings, Muchetu was found guilty and dismissed.

He appealed to the Works Council, where his hearing was held at the company's Southerton plant on February 18, 2025.

At that hearing, Muchetu accepted responsibility for consuming alcohol at work but asked for a lesser punishment, citing personal challenges he was experiencing at the time.

The Works Council rejected his appeal the following day, finding that he had directly violated the company's prohibition on consuming alcohol at the workplace and had displayed unprofessional conduct.

Muchetu then appealed to the Labour Court, challenging the decision to uphold his dismissal.

He argued that the Works Council had failed to properly consider the mitigating circumstances he had raised and that a final warning would have been more appropriate than dismissal.

Delta Beverages opposed the appeal and raised a preliminary objection, arguing that the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to hear the matter because Muchetu had not first approached a labour officer under section 101(5) of the Labour Act.

The company argued that the Labour Amendment Act of 2023 had introduced a mandatory domestic remedy requiring an aggrieved party to appeal to a labour officer within 30 days before approaching the Labour Court.

The Labour Court rejected that argument and ruled that Muchetu could elect whether to approach a labour officer or appeal directly to the Labour Court under section 92D.

Delta Beverages then approached the Supreme Court.

The central question before the apex court was whether section 101(5) required a worker to exhaust the labour officer route before approaching the Labour Court and whether the newer provision had effectively repealed section 92D.

The Supreme Court rejected both arguments.

Justice Rita Makarau, sitting with Justices of Appeal Antonia Guvava, Samuel Kudya and Hapias Zhou, said section 92D expressly gives the Labour Court appellate jurisdiction over disciplinary decisions made under registered employment codes.

Section 101(5), introduced by the 2023 Labour Amendment Act, allows an aggrieved party to approach a labour officer within 30 days after disciplinary proceedings.

But the court said the two provisions serve different purposes.

Under section 101(5), a labour officer must attempt to conciliate the dispute or exercise other powers provided under section 93.

A labour officer is therefore not an appellate tribunal capable of overturning the merits of a completed disciplinary decision.

"It must be noted from the onset that a labour officer is a creature of statute, he or she is bound by the four corners of the Labour Act," the court said.

"In the result, a labour officer, pursuant to the dictates of the Labour Act, can only conciliate a dispute, or if agreed by the parties, resolve the dispute through arbitration."

The Supreme Court said the labour officer route was intended to provide a cheaper and more accessible mechanism for resolving labour disputes before they proceed through the formal court system.

"The appeal process provided by s 101(5) is thus basically an avenue for conciliation," the court said.

The judges said the mechanism reflected a legislative preference for resolving disputes outside the formal court structure and could particularly benefit employees who might not have the resources to pursue a Labour Court appeal.

The court also relied on an earlier Supreme Court decision which established that a labour officer does not have jurisdiction to determine the merits of a dispute once a disciplinary process under a registered employment code has already reached a determination.

"A labour officer does not have any jurisdiction under s 93 to entertain a matter once a determination on the merits has been made through a disciplinary process under a registered code of conduct," the court said, quoting the earlier authority.

The Supreme Court therefore rejected Delta Beverages' argument that Muchetu had failed to exhaust domestic remedies.

"The doctrine of exhaustion of domestic remedies presupposes the existence of a competent and available remedy," the court said.

"Where the purported remedy lacks jurisdiction to determine the merits of the dispute, the doctrine finds no application."

The court also rejected the company's argument that section 101(5) had impliedly repealed section 92D.

"There can be no question of an implied repeal of s 92D by s 101(5) as both provisions stand to provide an appeal mechanism, however with different outcomes," the court ruled.

The judges said section 92D remained the provision conferring appellate jurisdiction on the Labour Court over disciplinary proceedings conducted under registered employment codes.

"That power cannot be taken away by a provision which was enacted to provide for conciliation," the court said.

The Supreme Court consequently dismissed Delta Beverages' appeal with costs, allowing the Labour Court's decision that Muchetu could directly approach it to stand.

Read the original article on New Zimbabwe.