T.M. Supermarket v T.M. National Workers' Committee

The appellant, T.M. Supermarket, owns a chain of stores across Zimbabwe. The respondent, the national workers' committee of the appellant's employees, filed a complaint alleging unfair labour practices concerning salary increments. The complaint concerned the awarding of salary increments to some employees while leaving out 182 employees. A labour relations officer found discrimination and unfair labour practice, ordering the appellant to pay the 182 employees salary increases as of 30 June 1995 per Statutory Instrument 208 of 1995 and back payment for October and November 1997. A senior labour relations officer reversed this decision, finding no discrimination and that SI 208/1995 had been implemented. The Labour Relations Tribunal then reversed the senior officer's decision, finding that while there was no discrimination based on race, colour, or place of origin under s 5 of the Labour Relations Act, the appellant had refused to negotiate with the respondent, constituting an unfair labour practice under ss 8 and 24 of the Act.

• Whether the employer refused to negotiate with the workers' committee, constituting an unfair labour practice
• Whether the interpretation of Statutory Instrument 185 of 1985 entitled the 182 employees to additional salary increments
• Whether there was discrimination against the 182 employees constituting an unfair labour practice under the Labour Relations Act
• Whether negotiation requires agreement to demands or merely discussion of issues

The appeal was allowed with costs. The judgment of the Labour Relations Tribunal was set aside and substituted with an order that: (1) The appeal is dismissed; (2) The appellant in that appeal will pay the costs of that appeal.

The binding legal principles established are: (1) Negotiation in labour relations means discussion between parties leading towards a conclusion on an issue, not necessarily agreement to the demands of one party; (2) Refusing to grant a salary increase is not the same as refusing to negotiate; (3) Under section 6(3) of Statutory Instrument 185 of 1985, employers are not required to provide additional increases to employees whose wages have already been increased by virtue of minimum wage provisions; (4) An employer does not commit an unfair labour practice merely by refusing to grant additional increments to employees who have already received statutory minimum wage increases; (5) Section 10(2) of SI 185/1985 prohibits employees from striking or threatening industrial action on grounds that lower paid employees received increases while they did not receive the same or proportional increase.

The Court observed that the respondent's representative had provided his own version of the statutory provision rather than accurately reading and interpreting it, highlighting the importance of careful statutory interpretation. The Court also noted that the threatened job action would not have been proper in view of section 10(2) of Statutory Instrument 185 of 1985, though this was not the primary basis for the decision.

This case is significant in Zimbabwean labour law as it clarifies the distinction between refusing to negotiate and refusing to agree to demands in the context of unfair labour practice allegations. It provides guidance on the interpretation of statutory instruments governing wage increases and the application of formulae for calculating incremental increases. The case establishes that employers are not required to grant additional increments to employees who have already received increases pursuant to minimum wage legislation, and that negotiation does not mandate capitulation to employee demands. It also reinforces the provisions preventing industrial action based solely on differential increases awarded to lower-paid employees.