The Zimbabwe Bata Shoe Company Limited v The Chairman, NEC for the Leather Industry and Zimbabwe Leather and Allied Workers Union

The appellant, Zimbabwe Bata Shoe Company Limited, was a member of the tanners and shoe manufacturing industry. A wage dispute arose between employers in this industry and employees affiliated to the second respondent (Zimbabwe Leather and Allied Workers Union) concerning wages for the period 1 July to 31 December 2010. Collective bargaining negotiations were held under the chairmanship of the first respondent (NEC for the Leather Industry) but ended in deadlock. The parties agreed in writing to submit the dispute to voluntary arbitration and to be bound by the award. A panel of two arbitrators made an award ordering employers to effect a 9.1% wage increase across the board. Pursuant to this award, NEC issued a wage increase notice. On 11 November 2010, the appellant applied to NEC under section 2 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement (SI 246/1993) seeking exemption from implementing the wage increase on grounds of financial incapacity. A sub-committee of NEC considered the application and referred it to full council. On 1 March 2011, NEC issued a decision that it had no jurisdiction to interfere with an arbitral award. The appellant then approached the Labour Court for review of NEC's refusal to hear the matter on merits, which was dismissed. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.

• Whether the parties agreed to be bound by the arbitral award
• Whether the Labour Court erred in holding that NEC's decision declining jurisdiction raised a point of law and was appealable rather than reviewable
• Whether NEC and the Labour Court had jurisdiction to hear an application for exemption from a voluntary arbitral award
• Whether a voluntary arbitral award can be interfered with by bodies other than the High Court
• Whether an application for exemption from an arbitral award falls within the exclusive recourse provisions of Article 34 of the Model Law under the Arbitration Act

The appeal was dismissed with costs. The Supreme Court upheld the dismissal of the review application by the Labour Court, albeit on different grounds than those given by the Labour Court.

Where parties voluntarily agree to submit a dispute to arbitration and agree to be bound by the arbitral award, that award has final and binding effect and cannot be interfered with by the National Employment Council or the Labour Court. A voluntary arbitral award that is not statutorily incorporated into a Collective Bargaining Agreement remains separate and distinct from that CBA, and exemption provisions in the CBA cannot be used to avoid compliance with the arbitral award. The only recourse against a voluntary arbitral award is by application to the High Court under Article 34 of the Model Law (Arbitration Act, Chapter 7:15) for setting aside the award on specific grounds. An application for exemption from the terms of an arbitral award does not constitute the exclusive relief of 'setting aside' contemplated in Article 34, and therefore no court or tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain such an application.

The Court observed that the parties and the Labour Court misguidedly expended valuable time on the irrelevant issue of whether NEC's decision was reviewable or appealable, which diverted attention from the real dispute: whether a voluntary arbitral award could be interfered with by any court given the circumstances of the case. The Court also noted that while in some circumstances a point of law may justify an appeal rather than review, this was not such a circumstance. The Court remarked that the standard for judicial interference with voluntary arbitral awards is very high, and courts will proceed on the basis that parties have chosen their own procedure and there should not be any interference with the results, save in limited instances where an award is against public policy.

This case is significant in Zimbabwean labour and arbitration law as it clarifies the finality and binding nature of voluntary arbitral awards in labour disputes. It establishes that parties who voluntarily agree to submit to arbitration and be bound by the award cannot subsequently seek exemption from the award through the National Employment Council or Labour Court. The case reinforces the principle of minimal judicial interference with voluntary arbitration awards and confirms that only the High Court has limited jurisdiction to set aside such awards under Article 34 of the Model Law in the Arbitration Act, and only on specific grounds. It also distinguishes between seeking exemption from an award (which is not permissible) and seeking to set aside an award (which may be done only through the High Court on limited grounds). This strengthens the arbitration framework in Zimbabwe by upholding the sanctity of arbitration agreements and awards.