Zimpapers Logo

Davies Ndumiso Sibanda, Labour Matters

MANY employees have been attacked by outsiders while at work and very little has been done to protect them yet the law places a duty on the employers to protect their employees. I recall a case of a salaries clerk who used to be in trouble with former employees who demanded their terminal benefits and on two occasions he was beaten by former workers who were demanding their money. The clerk in self defence beat one such former employee with a baton stick and injured him and only then did the employer put in measures to protect the employee.

There are also numerous cases of secretaries and female employees who have been attacked by managers’ wives over allegations of having affairs with their husbands and the unfortunate women are left to fight battles on their own with the husbands nowhere to be seen.

The law requires the employer to protect such employees and our case law comes from the case of UniBank vs Jijita SC58/02 where Jijita was the secretary to the Managing Director and was beaten at work by the Managing Director’s wife on allegations of having an affair with her husband. Jijita complained several times and even to the board chairman. In the end she stopped coming to work citing safety issues. The labour court ordered reinstates, which was confirmed by the Supreme Court. It said “It cannot be disputed that the appellant had taken a casual approach to the respondent’s grievance. They had done nothing to ensure that their employee was protected. While it was true that Mrs “M” did not fall under their authority, it could not be said that her husband was in the same position. There is nothing in the evidence before the court to show any decisive action was taken to ensure, through Mr Mushambadzi, that the unfortunate incident would not be repeated, nor that he would prevail on his wife not to continue with the threats against the respondent. The incident happened to their employee and within their premises. Yet they chose to distance themselves from both the incident and its consequences upon the respondent and her work. She reported in one of her letters that while waiting for the matter to be dealt with, she could no longer give her work the attention it deserved since she could not concentrate. 

Faced with this lack of sympathy from the appellant, and with the knowledge that no protection would be forthcoming from it in relation to the threatened violence from Mrs “M”, I do not see how it can be said no reasonable excuse existed for the respondent’s failure to report for work.

The Chairman of the Labour Tribunal was, in these circumstances, satisfied that the respondent had a reasonable excuse for absenting herself from work. Since I find his determination to be eminently sound there is no reason to upset it.”

The court’s ruling in this case clearly places the responsibility on the employer to be sympathetic to employees whose safety is under threat. It is more so where the aggressor is the wife of an employee as the employee has a duty to restrain his spouse so that the workplace is a safe place for employees. In conclusion, employers should take seriously any case of threatened physical harm to employees by outsiders and ensure employees’ cries for protection get the attention they deserve.

λ Davies Ndumiso Sibanda can be contacted on: email: [email protected]