Zimbabwe Electricity Supply Authority vs Moses Mare

The respondent, Moses Mare, an employee of ZESA, was charged with four counts of misconduct under the Code of Conduct. The charges included: (1) conducting himself in a manner bringing ZESA into disrepute (s 7(e)(viii)); (2) hindering or obstructing employees from performing duties (s 7(e)(vi)); (3) taking and converting ZESA property (s 7(j)(i)); and (4) making false claims for travel and subsistence allowance (s 7(j)(iii)). The Disciplinary Committee found him guilty on three counts (excluding count 3) and dismissed him. The Appeals Committee upheld the dismissal. The Labour Court (formerly Labour Tribunal) reversed both decisions and ordered reinstatement without loss of salary and benefits. The facts established that: (Count 1) on 2 November 1994 at Masvingo depot, the respondent, a Workers' Committee member, forcibly took from Mr Samangure a report being prepared for disciplinary proceedings against other employees; (Counts 2 & 3) the respondent submitted duplicate claims to NEC and ZESA Pension Fund for travel and subsistence for the same journey and period (8-9 December 1994), claiming transport, breakfast and lunch twice for the same day.

• Whether a member of the Workers' Committee is entitled to forcibly obstruct lawful employer investigations into employee misconduct while defending workers' rights
• Whether the Labour Court was correct to find that the respondent was acting outside the scope of employment when intervening as a Workers' Committee member
• Whether the double claims for travel and subsistence allowance from two different organizations for the same period constitutes dishonest conduct and misconduct
• Whether ZESA had locus standi to charge the respondent with misconduct for fraudulent claims made to third-party organizations (NEC and Pension Fund)
• What standard of review applies to Labour Court appeals from internal disciplinary proceedings

The appeal was allowed. The order of the Labour Court was set aside and the determination of the Appeals Committee was reinstated (dismissing the respondent from employment). The respondent was ordered to pay costs.

1. Members of Workers' Committees, while having a duty to defend workers' rights, are not above the law and must observe due process. They are not entitled to use force to obstruct lawful employer investigations into employee misconduct, even when acting in their representative capacity. 2. When a Workers' Committee member acts at the workplace in relation to employment matters, such conduct falls within the scope of employment and is subject to the employer's disciplinary authority. 3. Fraudulent or dishonest conduct by an employee, including making duplicate false claims to third-party organizations for travel and subsistence allowances in respect of the same journey and period, constitutes serious misconduct warranting dismissal. 4. An employer has locus standi to charge an employee with misconduct for dishonest conduct affecting third-party organizations where the employer has a substantial interest in those organizations, and in any event, the identity of the immediate victim is of little consequence where the conduct itself is dishonest and fraudulent. 5. Where internal disciplinary bodies have properly assessed evidence, applied the law correctly to the facts, and reached the right conclusion, there is no basis for interference by the Labour Court on appeal.

The Court observed that had the respondent disclosed to both NEC and the Pension Fund that he was claiming from both organizations for transport allowance in respect of the same journey and for meals in respect of the same day, there would have been no basis for alleging dishonesty. The Court also noted that the respondent's offering of false explanations for his conduct demonstrated his own appreciation that his conduct was dishonest—if he believed he was entitled to make the double claims, he would have simply said so rather than fabricating explanations about forgery or multiple trips. The Court also commented on the letter from ZEEWU (the workers' union) pleading for clemency on behalf of the respondent, noting that while this was mentioned, it did not affect the determination of whether misconduct had occurred.

This case is significant in Zimbabwean labour law as it clarifies important principles regarding the limits of Workers' Committee members' authority and the scope of employee misconduct. It establishes that worker representatives, while entitled to defend workers' rights, must operate within the bounds of law and due process and cannot obstruct lawful employer investigations through force or intimidation. The judgment also clarifies that dishonest conduct by employees, even when directed at third parties rather than the employer directly, can constitute grounds for dismissal where the employer has a legitimate interest. Furthermore, it provides guidance on the appropriate standard of review for appeals to the Labour Court, indicating that where internal disciplinary bodies have properly assessed evidence and applied the law correctly, there is limited scope for interference on appeal. The case reinforces the principle that employment relationships require trust and honesty, and that fraudulent conduct, even if technically affecting third parties, fundamentally breaches the employment relationship.