Zimpapers Logo

President Robert Mugabe approved the Labour Amendment Bill on Wednesday, putting a stop to a 41-day frenzy of employers terminating the contracts of their employees on three months’ notice. Also, it was a period of tears and sadness for the dismissed, anxiety and vulnerability for those still at work. The former saw no future for themselves, while the latter were unsure if they were not going to wake up the next morning to see a letter in their letter box at their homes bearing the negative news that they were free not to come to work immediately as they had been dismissed without benefits.

By all accounts, the past five weeks and six days must rank as the most turbulent for labour since 1980. It was a period when a job, and a livelihood, could be lost at the stroke of the pen, literally and figuratively. On July 17, the Supreme Court handed down a judgment that permitted employers to send their employees home on three months’ notice, with no compensation, even when someone had served an employer for 40 years. Employers sprang into frantic action, issuing letters to up to 25,000 workers, that they had been dismissed just as they read the letters.

But on Wednesday the President signed into law a bill that provides workers a minimum retrenchment package of a month’s salary for every two years served. The law also offers some job security as a company cannot simply fire a worker willy-nilly.

There are conditions, however, under which more orderly dismissals could occur when, for instance, a worker violates their professional code of conduct. Section 12C says employers that wish to terminate their workers’ contracts on notice must write to a works council, employment council or Retrenchment Board notifying it of their intention to do so. They have to specify the workers targeted for dismissal and reasons for such action. But it is the retrospective Section 12C (2) of the new Labour Act that must raise the spirits of those now out of jobs in terms of the July 17 court ruling.

“Unless better terms are agreed between the employer and the employees concerned or their representatives,” it reads, “a package (hereinafter called the minimum retrenchment package) of not less than one month’s salary for every two years of service as an employee (or the equivalent lesser proportion of one month’s salary or wages for a lesser period of service) shall be paid by the employer as compensation for the loss of employment no later than the date when the notice of unemployment takes effect.”

Workers are happy with the retrospective nature of that section of the law and the guarantees, though naturally qualified, for better job security. It means that at least the sacked ones will get some money to give them a restart in life. It’s better, of course for those who had served for longer periods. Still, comparatively, it is not too bad even for those who had served for shorter periods. It is not like three months notice. The law is also good in that it specifies the time by which the compensation should have been paid.

Section 12C makes it a bit difficult for the employer to sack people. That is encouraging for the worker going forward. The employer is obviously making noise over the backdated nature of the packages, warning of more company closures and so on. However, we see the retrospective clause as just and the minimum package as reasonable.

To us the latter represents a win-win scenario. A responsible government will not want workers to work for nothing, so crafted the new law with the compensation clause that, employers must appreciate, is substantially watered down. Unions are unhappy about this and have made their concern known. This package is drastically down from the then prevalent (before July 17) package of a month’s salary, or more, for every year served. MDC-T in its proposals it submitted to the Senate wanted the status quo to remain.

Zimbabwe Federation of Trade Unions secretary for economic affairs, Jacob Rice, welcomed the new law but said it could have been better. “It has brought some relief. However, it’s not as good as we wanted it to be.” At the same time, the government understands that companies are struggling so put the minimum package to two weeks’ salary for every year served. This is a fair deal and employers must not be cry-babies.

Unions are concerned about other new provisions that they say would encumber labour rights and give the responsible minister over-arching powers. They might be right, but the worker, for now is most interested in their future on their jobs, and for those dismissed between July 17 and Wednesday, some form of compensation. These imperfections, if authorities agree that they indeed are, would be attended to as we move on, for laws are not dead, they are living things that are subject to improvement from time to time.