The Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal by Delta Beverages and ruled that workers challenging disciplinary proceedings under registered employment codes do not have to approach a labour officer before appealing directly to the Labour Court. The post Supreme Court rejects Delta’s bid to force workers through labour officer first appeared first on Nehanda Radio .
The Supreme Court of Zimbabwe has dismissed an appeal by Delta Beverages (Private) Limited, ruling that employees aggrieved by disciplinary proceedings under registered employment codes can approach the Labour Court directly without first appealing to a labour officer.
The ruling came in a case involving Delta Beverages and its former employee, Mufaro Muchetu, who challenged his dismissal after being found guilty of misconduct.
Muchetu was employed as a machine operator at Delta Beverages’ Southerton plant and was subject to the company’s Employment Code of Conduct.
According to the judgment, he was charged after allegedly working while under the influence of alcohol on November 8, 2024.
“He was tested for alcohol content at the end of his shift and was found with a high concentration level of alcohol in his blood,” the judgment states.
Delta Beverages alleged that his conduct created a safety risk because he was operating machinery while under the influence of alcohol.
Muchetu was subsequently found guilty and dismissed. He appealed to the Works Council, where he accepted responsibility for consuming alcohol at work but asked for a lesser penalty, citing personal challenges at the time.
The Works Council dismissed his appeal, prompting him to approach the Labour Court.
Delta Beverages opposed the proceedings, arguing that Muchetu had failed to exhaust domestic remedies because he had not first approached a labour officer in terms of section 101(5) of the Labour Act.
The company argued that the 2023 amendment to the Labour Act required an aggrieved employee to first appeal to a labour officer before accessing the Labour Court.
The Labour Court rejected the preliminary objection, finding that the use of the word “may” in sections 92D and 101(5) was permissive and allowed an aggrieved party to choose between the available remedies.
Delta Beverages subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court upheld the Labour Court’s decision, finding that the two provisions provide separate but complementary avenues for redress.
“These two provisions are not in conflict with each other but are complementary routes which eventually lead to a determination by the Labour Court,” the Supreme Court held.
The court explained that section 92D gives the Labour Court appellate jurisdiction to determine appeals arising from disciplinary proceedings under registered employment codes.
Section 101(5), meanwhile, provides an avenue for an aggrieved party to approach a labour officer, who is required to attempt conciliation.
“There is therefore no requirement that the respondent must proceed in terms of s 101(5) first before eventually finding his way to the Labour Court,” the judgment states.
The Supreme Court also rejected Delta Beverages’ argument that section 101(5), introduced in 2023, had impliedly repealed section 92D.
“Section 92D remains the provision which clothes the Labour Court with appellate jurisdiction to hear appeals arising from disciplinary proceedings under a registered code of conduct,” the court ruled.
The court further held that a labour officer is not an appellate authority and cannot determine the merits of a dispute already decided through disciplinary proceedings under a registered code.
It said the section 101(5) process essentially provides a route to conciliation and, where applicable, arbitration.
The Supreme Court concluded that an aggrieved party may elect whether to approach the Labour Court directly or use the labour officer route.
The appeal was dismissed with costs by the bench comprising Justices Antonia Guvava, Samuel Kudya and Happias Zhou.
