A former Lobels Bread (Private Limited) top official will be reinstated following a successful four-year legal fight with his employer, who fired him over the loss of 35,000 loaves of bread in 2021.
The development follows a Labour Court ruling by Justice Bridget Chivizhe, who found that Christopher Rufaro Mashaire was unfairly dismissed.
The judge set aside his dismissal, effectively reinstating him with full benefits and back pay.
Keep up with the latest headlines on WhatsApp | LinkedIn
The court heard Mashaire was employed by Lobels as an Electrical Foreman for more than 17 years.
He started working as an Artisan for three years and was later promoted to the position of an Electrical Foreman.
On 9th September, 2021 he was suspended without pay and benefits to enable investigations into allegations of misconduct.
Two charges were levelled against him, the first being breach of section 4(f) of the Labour (National Employment Code of Conduct) Regulations, 2006. i.e. gross incompetency and inefficiency in the performance of his or her work and section 4(g) of the same statutory instrument thy is habitual and substantial neglect of his duty.
The allegations levelled were that on Thursday, the 7th of September 2021, he replaced a burnt oven circulation fan motor on Plant 9 without conducting a proper root cause analysis.
It was his employer's contention that as a result of his actions, the spare motor got burnt in a short space of time after installation, resulting in plant stoppages which led to a loss of over 35,100 loaves.
With regards the second charge, it was alleged that the appellant neglected his duty on the same date when the business was running on a generator and his subordinate, Fungi Dhindi advised him that the generator was running at a high temperature of 85 degrees Celsius.
The respondent's allegation was that Mashaire had not given the matter sufficient urgency, resulting in the generator developing a fault and stopping in the midst of production.
Upon investigation by the Plant Manager, it was established that the coolant levels were low; this could have been avoided had Mashaire responded quickly upon receipt of the report from his subordinate.
"The respondent had consequently suffered a loss of 10,570 loaves of bread.
"The respondent further alleged that the appellant had neglected his duty by failing to ensure the availability of a standby burner for plant 9 until the burner had a failure on the 7th of September,2021, resulting in the prolonged plant stoppages which could have been avoided," the court heard.
A disciplinary hearing was convened on 24th September, 2021.
Following a full hearing, the Disciplinary Authority found that Mashaire had been grossly inefficient in the execution of his duties and that he neglected to perform preventative maintenance on the Plant 9 circulation fan as expected of him under his job description.
The Disciplinary Authority also found that despite the issue of the aged machinery, this had nothing to do with the premature failure of the replacement motor.
The committee said Mashaire had not conducted a proper root cause analysis as expected after a breakdown.
It was also their finding that he had substantially neglected his duties when he failed to act upon being advised by his subordinate of the overheating resulting in the eventual shutdown of the plant.
His actions was said to have resulted in Lobels suffering financial prejudice in the amount of ZWD$5,127,374.00.
The Disciplinary Authority dismissed Mashaire's claims of victimisation and shortage of staff in his department.
After considering his mitigating circumstances as against the aggravating circumstances, the Disciplinary Authority found him guilty of breach of section 4(f).
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
He was, however, found not guilty of breach of section 4(g).
A penalty of dismissal from employment was consequently imposed.
Aggrieved by the decision of the Disciplinary Authority, the Appellant noted an internal appeal which was dismissed.
In his appeal, he had contended that he had performed preventative maintenance on the Plant 9 circulation fan as expected of him.
He also submitted that whilst he had performed his duties on the day with other employees, those employees had not also been charged, suggesting an element of bias.
Mashaire also contended that the penalty of dismissal from employment was excessive in the circumstances.
He then approached the Labour Court, which ruled in his favour, concluding that his dismissal was unfair.
