E M Chindundundu v The Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe

The appellant was a driver employed by the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe. On 24 February 1995, at approximately 6 am, he was involved in an accident while driving his employer's vehicle on duty. He waited about thirty minutes for police, then drove to the Bank, left the Bank's vehicle there, took his own vehicle and went off on private business. He reported to police about noon and told the Bank's transport administrator about the accident at 3 pm. He was suspended on 14 February 1995 and dismissed on 8 March 1995 on three grounds: (1) failing to report the accident with a Bank vehicle in terms of the Bank's Code of Conduct; (2) being exceedingly negligent in failing to obtain details of the other party, thus preventing the Bank from making a claim for repairs costing $11,356.00 from insurers; and (3) being subject to a final written warning issued on 18 October 1994 for four prior offences relating to his duties as a driver in 1994. On 20 March 1995, he wrote to the Governor appealing for clemency, expressly stating he was not contesting his dismissal but asking for consideration for re-employment. He then appealed to the Labour Relations Tribunal.

• Whether the appellant had properly exhausted his remedies under the Bank's Code of Conduct before appealing to the Labour Relations Tribunal
• Whether the dismissal was justified on the grounds of failing to report an accident with a Bank vehicle
• Whether the dismissal was justified on the grounds of negligently failing to obtain details of the other party involved in the accident
• Whether the cumulative grounds for dismissal, including a prior final written warning, justified the termination of employment

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

An employee must exhaust internal remedies provided under an employer's code of conduct before appealing to the Labour Relations Tribunal. A letter expressly stating that the employee is not contesting dismissal but merely seeking clemency does not constitute a legal appeal. Dismissal is justified where an employee breaches specific instructions in a manner that causes substantial financial loss to the employer, particularly where the breach makes it impossible for the employer to recover losses from third parties or insurers. Where multiple grounds for dismissal are advanced, the establishment of one sufficiently serious ground is adequate to uphold the dismissal, even if other grounds are not proven.

McNally JA observed that the first ground of dismissal (failing to report the accident) was not convincingly established, noting that the Code did not specify to whom the accident should be reported or within what time frame. The court noted that if the reporting obligation was to the police, the Road Traffic Act s 70(5) required reporting "as soon as is reasonably practicable and, in any event, within twenty-four hours," which would have been satisfied. If the obligation was to the Bank, no specific time limit was imposed in the Code. The court also noted that the practicability of reporting before attending to urgent personal business concerning a funeral was not explored in the disciplinary proceedings. The court reminded counsel that in appeals concerning a Code of Conduct, a copy of the Code should form part of the record.

This case is significant in Zimbabwean labour law for establishing principles regarding: (1) the requirement to exhaust internal remedies under an employer's code of conduct before appealing to the Labour Relations Tribunal; (2) the distinction between an appeal for clemency and a legal appeal against dismissal; (3) the employer's right to dismiss for serious breaches of specific instructions that cause financial loss to the employer; and (4) the standard of justification required for dismissal in disciplinary proceedings. The case illustrates that where multiple grounds for dismissal are cited, the validity of even one serious ground is sufficient to uphold the dismissal.