Zimpapers Logo

Fidelis Munyoro Assistant News Editor
THE Supreme Court on Monday granted an appeal by Zesa Holdings to quash the Labour Court decision, which had set aside the company’s decision to slash the salary and benefits of a manager it convicted of recruiting an unqualified person to run its automotive workshop.
Mr Deporis Masitera, who was employed as human resources manager, had his salary reduced by 15 percent for six months after the disciplinary committee found him guilty on a charge of unsatisfactory performance of work.

This was after one Mr Samuel Zigori responded to an advert for a vacant post of Workshop manager within Zesa Holdings.  The power company wanted a qualified automotive engineer and Mr Zigori held out himself as a qualified automotive engineer, and he landed the post. It was later discovered that Mr Zigori was in fact unqualified and had in fact deliberately lied about his qualifications in applying for the job.

He was then fired prompting an inquiry into the manner in which the selection committee led by Mr Masitera handled the recruitment. He was found guilty of improper conduct and the company effected a reduction of salary and benefits for six months but successfully appealed against that decision at the Labour Court.

The matter was then brought to the Supreme Court on appeal and a three-judge panel led by Deputy Chief Justice Luke Malaba ruled in favour of Zesa.

“The appeal be and is hereby allowed with costs . . . The appeal noted by the respondent (Masitera) be and is hereby dismissed with costs,” said Dep Chief Justice Malaba. Justices Bharat Patel and Antonia Guvava concurred with the ruling.

Through its lawyer, Mr Taona Nyamakura of Mtetwa and Nyambirai, Zesa appealed to the Supreme Court.
Mr Nyamakura argued that the Labour Court erred in finding that all members of the interviewing panel were answerable for selection of Mr Zigori and should be charged with unsatisfactory performance of work.

He also argued that the lower court had erred in failing to consider the fact that it was Mr Masitera’s responsibility as human resources manager to shortlist candidates and ensure that shortlisted candidates possessed requisite applications either before, at, or if selected immediately after interview.

Mr Nyamakura also argued that the lower court erred in finding that the penalty imposed on Masitera was ultra vires the company code.
Mr Masitera who was being represented by Kantor and Immerman law firm had asked the superior court to dismiss the appeal arguing it lacked merit

He argued that he was merely tasked with the responsibility of making preliminary shortlist of candidates who were to be further interviewed and ultimately appointed by the company’s selection committee.

Mr Masitera also argued that it was erroneous on the part of the power company to exclusively cast blame on him for a deliberate misrepresentation which was made by the appointed employee.