Former Telecel employees demand $2, 8 million compensation

News
Forty-three former Telecel Zimbabwe employees whose employment contracts were terminated on notice last year, have now approached the High Court demanding $2,8 million in compensation, accusing their former paymaster of unlawfully dismissing them.

Forty-three former Telecel Zimbabwe employees whose employment contracts were terminated on notice last year, have now approached the High Court demanding $2,8 million in compensation, accusing their former paymaster of unlawfully dismissing them.

BY CHARLES LAITON

Both parties appeared at the court this week for a pre-trial conference as the matter continues to be deliberated on by a High Court judge.

In a joint founding affidavit, the former workers said what Telecel did to them was against the country’s labour laws and as such, the company should own up and pay them damages.

According to the court papers, the fired employees and the mobile network provider, entered into an employment contract under which the workers would provide personal services to the company in different capacities.

“In terms of section 12(4a) of the Labour Act, no employer shall terminate a contract of employment on notice except in the circumstances specified in the said section,” the workers said through their lawyers.

“Notwithstanding the provisions of section 12(4a) of the Labour Act, the defendant (Telecel) terminated each of the plaintiff’s contracts of employment merely by giving notice and without complying with any of the circumstances specified in the said section 12(4a).

“The defendant’s non-compliance with section 12(4a) in terminating each of the plaintiff’s contract of employment was an unlawful act.

“The damages due to each plaintiff have been measured on the basis that it would take each plaintiff a minimum period of 36 months from the date of the unlawful termination to get alternative employment.”

The former workers further said Telecel had an obligation to put each of its former employees in the position he or she would have occupied had the unlawful act not occurred adding that could only be done by the payment of money. In its plea, however, Telecel denied having acted unlawfully as alleged and challenged the former workers to prove their case.

In its summary of evidence, Telecel said at the time of the termination of the employees employment contracts on notice, such termination was lawful and in line with the common law.

“Defendant admits that demand for compensation was made, but states that it is not liable to effect payment as demanded or at all,” Telecel said.