Zimpapers Logo

News that some workers dismissed on three months’ termination notice have not had their salaries for the notice period shows little foresight on the part of the employers.

We appreciate that in some cases dire financial straits forced organisations to take the tough decision to dismiss workers. Through various factors, including global economic trends like tight liquidity challenges, some organisations have been struggling with reduced activity.

As capacity utilisation decreases, labour costs continue to burgeon as a percentage of total expenditure. Thus the need to rationalise may be a life and death decision for an entity.

In addition to staff costs, organisations have other expenses so getting people off the premises may not have resulted in any immediate appreciable positive differences on the operational accounts.

But bearing all that in mind we still strongly feel that leaders who took the decision to terminate workers contracts should have put in place measures to ensure that affected staff would receive their dues timeously.

It looks like some organisations decided to adopt an “out of sight out of mind” approach to the welfare of the dismissed workers. Such employers have gone on to blatantly ignore what they had written in the termination papers yet the workers met their part of the contract by immediately stopping reporting for duty when so instructed.

The implication of failing to meet the legal requirement of the termination contract they generated may result in serious consequences for many organisations. To start with once the dismissed workers have to resort to legal action to get their just dues, the costs for the organisation go up.

The organisation’s management of its cash flow would also be better managed in a system whereby it pays the workers’ salaries at the promised schedule then works out a staggered system for other outstanding benefits. By avoiding paying the terminated workers, the employer runs the risk of ultimately having the business they are trying to keep afloat closed arbitrarily.

For if the workers should win court orders they will come with time frames that the employer may fail to meet leading to garnishee orders or repossession of property to settle the outstanding payments. There have been many such examples where organisations have lost core operational equipment and properties in auctions as former workers fight to get their dues.

This is a gross violation of the rights of a worker who may be feeling hard done and unfortunate for having been among those who received the dreaded termination letters. It is cruel and unusual treatment to then deny that worker the promised termination package of their pay over the three months of the notice period.

But this is more than just a matter of ethics and feelings. The chances that any of these workers have secured alternative sources of income is very slim. Formal employment rates which were low to begin with have gone even lower with the terminations. With the new focus of reducing labour costs and capitalising on minimal human resources, the chances of organisations recruiting are even lower.

Thus most dismissed workers will probably end up trying to find space in the informal sector. But just like any other entrepreneurial venture, one needs start-up capital and it takes time to grow the business to sustainable and profitable levels.

For most dismissed workers that would translate to an urgent need for the promised salaries and accrued terminal benefits like pension contribution refunds.

To fail to access that money no matter how small the figure may be means that one is totally grounded and left in limbo unable to execute any survival plans they may have come up with.

On the other hand the dismissed workers continue to have the usual responsibilities of providing shelter, food, education, medical attention and other life basics for themselves and their dependants.

The workers and their dependants would have had a legitimate expectation to continue with their accustomed lifestyle for the three months of notice.

By denying them their pay packets for the contracted months is tantamount to sentencing them to immediate abject poverty.