Cold Storage Company National Workers Committee v Cold Storage Company Limited

The workers of Cold Storage Company Limited elected a Workers' Committee in terms of section 23 of the Labour Relations Act [Chapter 28:01]. The Workers' Committee filed an urgent application in the High Court seeking to declare the termination of employment of all the respondent's employees under a Voluntary Mutual Separation Agreement as illegal and invalid. The Committee sought reinstatement of the employees, payment of salaries and benefits, and costs. The respondent raised preliminary objections regarding the Workers' Committee's legal capacity to institute proceedings and whether the High Court was the appropriate forum for the dispute.

• Whether a workers' committee has legal capacity to sue and be sued in the High Court
• Whether section 24(1)(a) of the Labour Relations Act empowers a workers' committee to litigate on behalf of employees
• Whether the High Court was the appropriate forum for an unfair labour practice dispute, or whether it should have been brought before a labour relations officer in terms of section 93 of the Act
• Whether good cause was shown for approaching the High Court instead of the labour relations tribunal

The application was dismissed with costs. The court noted that the employer could recover its costs from the particular employees who instructed the workers' committee to represent them in court.

1. A workers' committee established under section 23 of the Labour Relations Act [Chapter 28:01] does not have legal capacity to sue and be sued in its own name, as the legislature did not expressly grant it the status of a legal persona or body corporate, unlike employment councils under section 60 of the Act. 2. Unfair labour practice disputes must be brought before a labour relations officer in terms of section 93 of the Act, and may only be heard by the High Court where good cause is shown for departing from this procedure. No good cause is established merely by bringing the matter directly to the High Court without attempting to use the statutory mechanism.

The court observed that allowing workers' committees to sue without legal personality would create practical difficulties, as there would be no entity from which an adverse party could recover costs or against which orders could be executed. The court also noted obiter that while the workers' committee itself could not be held liable for costs, the employer might be able to recover costs from the particular individual employees who instructed the workers' committee to represent them in court, though this suggestion was not formally part of the order.

This case is significant in Zimbabwean labour law (note: this is a Zimbabwean case, not South African) as it clarifies the limited legal capacity of workers' committees under the Labour Relations Act. It establishes that workers' committees, unlike employment councils, do not have the status of legal personae capable of instituting litigation in their own name. The case also reinforces the principle that labour disputes, particularly those involving allegations of unfair labour practices, must be brought before the appropriate forum (labour relations officers/tribunals) unless good cause is shown for approaching the High Court directly. It emphasizes the importance of proper forum selection and warns against bypassing specialized labour dispute resolution mechanisms.