The respondent was employed as a manager by the appellant company. On 11 March 1996, he was suspended without pay pending dismissal after a disciplinary committee found he had failed to perform his duties to the required standard by not following proper procedures regarding technique sheets. The company applied for authority to dismiss him. The Labour Relations Officer ordered reinstatement with full benefits. The Senior Labour Relations Officer reversed this decision, found the allegations proven, and authorized dismissal from the date of suspension. The Labour Relations Tribunal then found that as a managerial employee, the respondent should have been dealt with under the industry Code of Conduct and ordered his reinstatement with full benefits from the date of suspension.
The appeal was upheld with costs. The matter was remitted to the Labour Relations Tribunal to hear and determine the appeal on the merits.
A code of conduct contained in a collective bargaining agreement applies only to those persons falling within the definition of 'employee' as set out in that agreement. Where the agreement explicitly defines 'employee' as excluding managerial employees (as defined in the Labour Relations Act), the code of conduct does not apply to managerial employees. While a managerial employee is an employee, a code of conduct applicable to 'employees' is not necessarily applicable to all employees where the agreement states otherwise through its definitions.
The Court observed, without making a definitive finding, that even if the respondent had been properly served with the application for reinstatement of the appeal and had opposed it, the application would likely have succeeded based on the contents of the founding affidavit and annexures. The Court noted that no prejudice resulted from any potential failure to serve the application. The Court also noted that while a managerial employee is indeed an employee, this does not automatically mean all employment regulations apply equally to both categories where distinctions are explicitly drawn.
This case is significant in Zimbabwean labour law as it clarifies the scope of application of industry codes of conduct. It establishes that where a collective bargaining agreement explicitly defines 'employee' to exclude managerial employees, the associated code of conduct does not apply to such managerial employees. The case demonstrates the importance of examining the specific definitions and terms of collective bargaining agreements rather than applying general principles. It provides guidance on statutory interpretation in the context of employment codes of conduct and distinguishes between general employees and managerial employees for purposes of disciplinary procedures.