Zimpapers Logo

President Robert Mugabe on Wednesday spoke for the first time on the recent Supreme Court ruling that permitted employers to fire workers on three months’ notice without the obligation of paying them any benefits.

Workers had grown anxious, expecting the highest office in the land to pronounce himself on the earth-shaking July 17 ruling that has seen as many as 9,000 being fired.

While the Minister of Public Service, Labour and Social Welfare, Cde Prisca Mupfumira has spoken on the judgment and assured employees that the government was working on an amendment to the Labour Act to give more protection to workers, the voice of the President obviously carries more weight.

He said the Supreme Court correctly interpreted the law by allowing Zuva Petroleum to sack its former workers, Don Nyamande and Kingstone Donga on three months notice and without any benefits but said the government was working on amending the law to ensure that employers do not fire their employees so easily and cheaply. He said the law must serve the people and not for it to disadvantage them.

“Just firing workers for them to go on the streets on three months notice?” he said. “Ok, so we are now going back to the law. We don’t want the law which is an ass. The law must be amended. We don’t blame the judges because the judges say that is what the law says. Employers then rushed saying they had a burden of paying people who were not doing anything. But you employers where does your livelihood come from? The success of companies derives from the workers. We cannot do that, where will our people go?Where will they get money to pay rent, water bills and so on? Anyway, we are looking at that situation. Sorry, sorry that this thing happened.”

Workers, particularly those still on jobs but are unsure about their future, can take this as an assurance that work is underway to secure their jobs or at least allow them to go away with some plausible package if they happen to be sacked. They hope that the President’s voice might influence some companies to slow down on dismissals.

The court ruling has brought a lot of anxiety for those still on jobs and much suffering for those who have been rendered jobless since July 17. The first group is unsure if they will not find their offices locked when they turn up for work tomorrow while the second group was thrown into financial and social insecurity without any warning with little chance they would be out of their predicaments any time soon.

While workers are in a difficult situation because of the Supreme Court ruling, employers have taken this as an opportunity to rationalise their workforces. And they have indeed gone on to dismiss workers, some so eager to do so that they delivered the dismissal letters during weekends.

We hope that the amendment that the President pledged would materialise soon for stability to return to the labour market.

We acknowledge that the government has a tough task to achieve the fine balance that it has to in amending the law. It must offer workers acceptable security from instant dismissal with no benefit regardless of the length of time that they have served their employers while on the other hand it must offer companies more flexibility in their handling of workers.

It is sad that some investors are unhappy with our labour laws which they deem too tight and want them loosened to allow them to sack workers when they see necessary. Some may have been discouraged from investing by this.

The President’s remarks must reassure such potential investors that the government would consider their views in the forthcoming amendment.

Consultations to achieve consensus between the government, employers and labour are underway for the amendment to have a buy-in from all the three parties. We hope they reach an understanding as soon as possible.

A workable framework must impose an obligation on employers to give reasons for their intention to dismiss workers, not to allow them to do so without any explanation. This can help prevent cases where companies can fire workers for no reason. In addition, the notice period must be extended to at least six months with a provision for substantial packages on the fired workers, taking into consideration the time he or she had worked and salary level.

One criticism of our labour law was that the process of firing a worker took too long. To curtail this, we expect the new law to impose a period within which this process must be finished for workers to move on and for employers to save on labour costs more timeously.