University of Zimbabwe v University of Zimbabwe Staff Associations

On 10 June 1998, the University of Zimbabwe and staff associations met and agreed to recommend a 60% salary increase and 50% increase in allowances effective 1 July 1998. On 27 July 1998, the Salaries and Conditions of Service Committee recommended a 40% across-the-board salary adjustment. This recommendation was submitted to the Secretary for Higher Education and Technology, who forwarded it to the Ministry of Finance for approval. On 10 September 1998, the Ministry approved only a 5% to 21% salary increase on a sliding scale (later changed to 15% to 21%), citing financial constraints. The University paid only the Ministry-approved increase. The staff associations filed an unfair labour practice complaint, arguing the University had reneged on the agreement to pay 40%. The labour relations officer ordered the University to pay the difference between the Ministry-approved increase and the 40% recommendation. This decision was confirmed by the senior labour relations officer and the Labour Relations Tribunal.

• Whether the agreement between the University and staff associations to increase salaries by 40% was subject to a suspensive condition (condition precedent) requiring Ministry of Finance approval
• Whether the Labour Relations Tribunal erred in determining and enforcing a specific salary increase percentage in the absence of a binding agreement
• Whether the Tribunal correctly exercised its powers under section 91(1) of the Labour Relations Act to substitute its own determination
• Whether section 97(4) of the Labour Relations Act empowered the Tribunal to determine the appropriate percentage salary increase

The appeal was allowed with costs. The order of the Labour Relations Tribunal was set aside and replaced with an order allowing the appeal with costs and setting aside the determinations of both the senior labour relations officer and the labour relations officer with costs.

Where parties to a collective bargaining agreement have consistently negotiated salary increases subject to government approval, and where it is made clear that implementation depends on such approval, the agreement is subject to a suspensive condition (condition precedent). Until that condition is fulfilled through the granting of approval, the agreement is not binding and enforceable. A labour tribunal, when finding that an agreement is subject to an unfulfilled suspensive condition, must set aside the determination and cannot substitute its own determination of terms in the absence of a binding agreement. The tribunal's powers under section 91(1) of the Labour Relations Act to substitute its own determination are limited to the specific issue properly before it, and cannot be exercised where there is no evidence to support such a determination and where the matter was not argued before the tribunal. A tribunal proceeding by way of hearing or deciding an appeal on the record under section 97(4) is restricted to determining the actual issue between the parties as presented to the labour relations officer.

The Court commented on the historical practice between the University and staff associations of negotiating salary increases subject to government approval, referencing a 1997 case (Judgment No. LRT/H/5/97) involving the same parties where government had similarly rejected an agreed salary increase. The Court noted with apparent criticism that it was "curious" that parties with no material dispute between them had to resort to litigation because of a third party's (government's) disapproval. The Court also observed that the Vice-Chancellor's letter clearly demonstrated the University's reliance on government funding specifically for salaries, distinguishing this from other operational requirements where the University had successfully generated its own revenue. The judgment implies criticism of the Tribunal chairman for failing to properly consider evidence that was part of the record before him.

This case establishes important principles in Zimbabwean labour and contract law regarding suspensive conditions in collective bargaining agreements. It clarifies that salary agreements in the public sector or publicly-funded institutions that are subject to government approval constitute agreements with conditions precedent, which are unenforceable until the condition is fulfilled. The case also provides guidance on the scope of labour tribunals' powers under sections 91(1) and 97(4) of the Labour Relations Act, establishing that tribunals must confine themselves to determining the specific issues brought before them and cannot impose determinations in the absence of evidence or where the foundational agreement is found to be unenforceable. It reinforces the principle that past practice and conduct between parties can establish the existence of implied conditions in agreements. The judgment is significant for defining the limits of judicial and quasi-judicial intervention in collective bargaining disputes, particularly where third-party approval is required.