Medical Investments Ltd t/a Avenues Clinic v Florence Chingwena

A disciplinary and grievances committee was constituted by the appellant to deal with allegations of misconduct against the respondent employee. The committee included two management and two worker representatives. During the proceedings, one of the two managerial representatives who had been elected chairman became unavailable, and the other managerial representative assumed the chairmanship. The committee found the respondent guilty of misconduct and ordered her dismissal from employment. The respondent challenged this decision in the Labour Court on the basis that the disciplinary committee had not been properly constituted.

• Whether the disciplinary and grievances committee was properly constituted in terms of the appellant's Code of Conduct when a managerial representative assumed chairmanship after the original chairman became unavailable
• Whether there was a need for an independent chairperson separate from the managerial representatives on the committee
• Whether the committee was left without a managerial representative when the remaining managerial representative assumed chairmanship
• Whether section 23 of the Labour Act, Chapter 28:01 required the committee to be composed solely of managerial employees
• Whether non-managerial employees could sit in judgment over managerial employees

The appeal was allowed with costs. The decision of the Labour Court was set aside and replaced with an order dismissing the application for review with costs.

A disciplinary and grievances committee is properly constituted when it complies with the provisions of the applicable Code of Conduct. Where the Code of Conduct provides for a chairperson to be elected from among the managerial representatives on the committee, there is no requirement for an additional independent chairperson. When a managerial representative assumes chairmanship after the original chairman becomes unavailable, this does not leave the committee without a managerial representative, as the chairperson retains their representative capacity and is granted a casting vote. Section 23 of the Labour Act, which deals with workers committees, does not govern the composition of disciplinary and grievances committees established under an employer's Code of Conduct. Where a Code of Conduct is agreed to apply to all employees including managerial staff, its provisions must be followed in disciplinary proceedings.

The Court observed, citing Madoda v Tanganda Tea Co 1999(1) ZLR 374 SC, that while the prospect of having a non-managerial employee sitting in judgment over a managerial employee might be inappropriate, the Code of Conduct has to be followed particularly where everyone agreed that it was to apply to all workers including managerial employees. This suggests some judicial unease with the practice but acknowledges that contractual agreements and codes of conduct must be respected.

This case provides important guidance on the proper constitution and functioning of disciplinary and grievances committees in Zimbabwean labour law. It clarifies that Code of Conduct provisions must be interpreted according to their plain meaning and that the chairperson of such committees can properly be elected from among managerial representatives without requiring an independent chairperson. The case reinforces that when parties agree to apply a Code of Conduct to all employees including managerial staff, the provisions must be followed even if this results in non-managerial employees sitting in judgment over managerial employees. It also clarifies the distinction between workers committees under section 23 of the Labour Act and disciplinary committees constituted under internal codes of conduct.