Zimpapers Logo

for First Officer on the MA60 aircraft.
Enias Mubaira had earlier on been dismissed following an arbitration award that ruled he had terminated the second contract of employment by failing to meet the conditions of employment he had entered with Air Zim.
Mubaira then appealed to the Labour Court against the award arguing that the respondent ought to have lifted his suspension, charge him, conduct the disciplinary hearing and pass the necessary penalty.
Mubaira further argued that by giving him a second chance, it meant that the respondent had already disciplined him without following the proper channels as is required.
Labour Court president Mr Godfrey Musariri disagreed with the submissions that all Air Zim had to do was to reinstate appellant and conduct fresh disciplinary proceedings.
Mr Musariri said: “Respondent, through a letter dated August 21, 2008 did reinstate appellant. But then the parties entered into a new contract, which is captured in respondent’s letter to appellant dated August 30, 2008.”
The operative part of the letter read: “I now wish to advise you that management after having considered the Pilot’s Assessment Committee’s recommendations, has agreed to give you a second chance as a First Officer on the MA60 Aircraft, subject to you passing the initial recruitment simulator test before proceeding to the next stage of training.
“Again please be kindly advised that failure at any point will render you an unsuitable candidate for the pilot position.”
Mr Musariri said it was clear the parties were bound by a new contract, which was basically the offer of employment as a pilot on condition appellant passed the recruitment simulator test.
“It is common cause that appellant failed the test therefore the offer of employment fell away.
“The contract neither acknowledged nor reserved any rights or liabilities related to appellant’s prior employment by respondent,” said Mr Musariri.
It was effectively a notation whereby it replaced the previous contract of employment.
Mr Musariri ruled that in these circumstances, appellant effectively signed away any rights he might have had arising from his previous employment by respondent.