The Labour Court Upholds Arbitral Award in Favour of Former Probationary Teacher
The Labour Court has ruled against Watershed College Trust, dismissing its appeal regarding an arbitral award that favored a former probationary teacher, Jenipha Madziva. The court determined that the institution had acted unlawfully by issuing a notice of termination after the expiration of her probation period. This decision underscores the importance of adhering to contractual obligations and highlights the legal consequences of ambiguous employment practices.
In a detailed judgment delivered by Justice Samuel Kudya, the court acknowledged that while the arbitrator made an error in classifying Madziva as a permanent employee, the core ruling on damages for unfair dismissal remained valid. The college had raised five grounds for challenging the arbitrator's decision, including claims about the classification of Madziva and the currency used for damages. However, only one of these grounds was found to have merit, and the rest were upheld.
Justice Kudya emphasized the contradiction in the employer’s actions, stating, "The employer clearly aprobated and reprobated by writing in the probation contract that it did not intend to extend it, yet it was doing exactly that which it said it did not intend to do." This statement reflects the court's view that the college’s behavior was inconsistent with the terms of the original agreement.
Background of the Dispute
The dispute originated from the school’s decision to employ Madziva under a fixed-term probation contract, which was set to expire on 31 March 2023. On that day, the school issued a notice indicating that it would not be extending her contract. The arbitrator ruled this action as unlawful termination and awarded damages, leading to the subsequent appeal by Watershed College Trust.
The judge criticized the college’s handling of the situation, noting that if the employer intended to terminate the probation contract, it should have done so before the expiration date. He further stated that once the contract entered the April to December phase, it was operating under a main contract, implying that the employer had implicitly agreed to continue the employment relationship.
Legal Implications and Prejudice
Kudya also addressed the issue of prejudice, emphasizing that unfair dismissal does not necessarily require proof of harm. "Prejudice is indeed not a prerequisite to find unlawful termination," he said, affirming the arbitrator’s position that the dismissal was inherently unfair regardless of specific damages.
Regarding the employer's objection to the damages being awarded in US dollars, the court reaffirmed Zimbabwe’s multi-currency framework. It noted that the employer could choose to pay using the local currency rate at the time of payment, without any issues. The judge also dismissed the employer's claim that the damages were incorrectly quantified, applying the principle of res ipsa loquitur, which suggests that the matter was clear from the contract itself.
Final Ruling and Costs
While the court upheld the appeal concerning Madziva’s classification as a permanent employee, it corrected the record to reflect that she was not, in fact, a permanent employee. The ruling affirmed that the arbitral award stands, with the necessary adjustments.
Watershed College Trust was ordered to pay costs on the ordinary scale, reinforcing the legal implications of their actions. This case serves as a critical reminder of the importance of clarity and consistency in employment contracts, particularly when dealing with probationary periods and termination procedures.
The decision reinforces the legal standards surrounding fair treatment of employees and the necessity for employers to adhere strictly to the terms of their agreements. It also highlights the role of arbitration in resolving disputes and the courts' willingness to uphold such decisions when they are based on sound legal principles.