GWAUNZA JCC: This is an application in terms of s 85
(1) of the Constitution.
The applicants seek an order affirming the first
applicant's constitutional right to belong to a trade union of his choice in
terms of s 65(2) of the Constitution. They also seek an order declaring as
unconstitutional and a violation of this fundamental right, the conduct of the
respondent in: -
1. refusing
the first applicant permission to belong to and participate in the lawful
activities of the Zimbabwe Banks and Allied Workers Union (ZIBAWU); and
2. giving
him the ultimatum to choose between his job and the trade union.
The applicants in
addition seek an order quashing any disciplinary proceedings against the first
applicant arising from;
“the
respondent's imposition of restrictions on his involvement and/or participation
in second applicant's lawful activities,”
as
well as costs of suit.
The facts which give rise to this application are as
follows. The first applicant was employed by the respondent as a loans officer with
effect from June 2010. In the same month, he was elected Vice President of the second
applicant. On 27 October 2011, the first applicant was promoted to the
post of Senior Loans Officer. In May 2012, he was appointed interim President
of the second applicant. The respondent reacted to this appointment and
expressed its disapproval of the continued association between the first and
the second applicants. The respondent's position was that since the applicant
was a managerial employee, he could no longer represent the interests of
non-managerial employees. This was in view of the fact that the second
applicant was a trade union concerned with such interests. There was correspondence
back and forth between the second applicant and the respondent concerning the
issue. The second applicant repeatedly wrote to the respondent seeking the
release of the first applicant to attend its functions and meetings both within
and outside Zimbabwe. The requests were all turned down. Meetings were held between the first applicant
and the respondent and the latter reiterated that the first applicant could not
be a managerial employee and president of the second respondent at the same
time. In the respondent's view, the two roles were mutually inconsistent.
The first applicant's position was that he was not a managerial
employee and if he was, he would still have the right to associate with the
second applicant in terms of s 4 of the Labour Act (“the Act”). This is the section
that guarantees employees the right to belong to a trade union of their choice,
and to participate in its lawful activities.
The second applicant's request for the release of the
first applicant to attend trade union business in South Africa from 18-21 March
2013, was rejected by the respondent. The first applicant nevertheless proceeded
to go for the workshop. The applicants held the view that the respondent's
refusal to grant the first applicant permission to attend functions and meetings
of the second respondent was also a violation of s 14 (6) of the Collective
Bargaining Agreement: Banking Undertaking, SI 273/2000. The section provides
that paid special leave shall be granted to an employee who is nominated to
attend national or international conferences as a trade union representative.
On 2 April 2013, the respondent preferred two misconduct
charges against the first applicant. The first related to his absence from work
during the time he attended trade union business in South Africa and the second
to wilful disobedience of a lawful instruction not to attend. A disciplinary
committee was constituted and it held that the proceedings were to be held in
abeyance until the matter pending in the Labour Court was finalized. This was a
referral of the dispute to the Labour Court in terms of s 46(b) of the Act,
made by the first applicant. In the referral, the first applicant sought a
determination on the question of whether or not he was a managerial employee of
the respondent.
The second applicant again wrote to the respondent
requesting the release of the first applicant for an elective congress which was
to be held from 4-6 April 2013. The respondent responded and maintained its
position that it would not allow the first applicant to attend as he could not
belong to the second applicant since he was a managerial employee. Undeterred,
the second applicant again wrote to the respondent requesting the release of
the first applicant to attend a 'Uni-Africa Regional Conference' in Nairobi,
Kenya from 15 -21 September 2013. The respondent, maintaining
its position, turned down the request. The first applicant attended the
conference regardless and the respondent preferred two other misconduct charges
against him.
Subsequent to the filing of this application, the
first applicant was brought before a disciplinary committee to answer to the
second set of charges, relating to his participation at the Kenya conference.
He was found guilty and was dismissed from the respondent's employ. The first
applicant then filed a complaint of unfair labour practice with the Ministry of
Labour.
Based on two main grounds, the respondent submits that
the application is not properly before this court.
Firstly, the respondent contends that there are two cases
pending before the Labour Court, both filed by the first applicant, opposed by
the respondent, and still awaiting determination. Further, that the question of
whether or not the first applicant is a managerial employee is at the heart of
both this dispute and the two matters pending in the Labour Court. Consequently,
the pendency of the matter in the Labour Court renders this application impermissible. Similarly, any determination of the issue by
that court would make this application unnecessary.
I find there is merit in the respondent's submissions.
The first applicant referred the dispute to the Labour
Court in terms of s 46(b) of the Act which reads as follows;
“46. Matters to be
determined by the Labour Court
In
the event of any dispute as to-
a) ….
b) whether
any employees are managerial employees;
the
matter shall be referred to the Labour Court for determination”
The matter was thus properly referred to the Labour
Court and, therefore fell to be determined by that court. There is nothing on
the record to suggest that the matter was withdrawn from the Labour Court. It
can therefore be assumed that it is still pending determination there. The same
applies to the first applicant's complaint of unfair labour practice, filed
with the Ministry of Labour.
There was thus no need for the applicants to file this
application. It falls to reason that before or following a determination of the
issue by the Labour Court the first applicant, if that was his wish, would have
had to follow a procedure that dictated a different route to reach this court.
Specifically, he would have had to reach this court
through a referral in terms of s 175(4), or an appeal (if applicable) in terms
of s 175 (1) and (3) of the Constitution. He could also have filed an appeal
against the determination of the Labour Court, to the Supreme Court for a final
determination of the matter.
The route taken by the applicants in bringing this
matter to the Constitutional Court is criticized in the case of Anna Colleta Chihava & 2 Ors vs The
Provincial Magistrate Francis Mapfumo N O & 1 Other (CC 02/14. In that
case the court held that the wording of s 85(1) of the Constitution should not
be understood to mean that a litigant is free to unceremoniously abandon
proceedings in a lower court, and be able to mount a constitutional challenge
before this court, seeking the same relief that the lower court would have been
competent to grant. A contrary interpretation would not only result in an
absurdity - where different courts may be seized simultaneously with the same
dispute - but would also cause procedural confusion pertaining to the courts'
jurisdictional parameters. It would also open the way to undeserving or
'unripe' cases being brought to the Constitutional Court, to the detriment of
its effective operation.
The respondent, I find, is correct in its assertion
that the applicants have improperly attempted to 'jump the gun' by coming to
this court in a bid to preempt the Labour Court's determination of the very
same issue.
Apart from this,
the procedure adopted by the applicants would constitute an affront to the time
honoured common law principle that a superior court should be slow to intervene
in ongoing proceedings in an inferior court, except in exceptional
circumstances. This principle is persuasively articulated as follows in the
case of Wahlhaus v Additional Magistrate,
Johannesburg 1959 (3) SA 113 (A): -
“… a superior court would be slow to exercise any
power upon the unterminated course of criminal proceedings in a court below,
but would do so in rare cases where grave injustice might otherwise result or
where justice might not by other means be attained.”
I am satisfied the same principle applies with equal
force to civil proceedings in a lower court.
Echoing the same
sentiments in the recent case of Cuthbert
Tapuwanashe Chawira & 13 Ors v Minister of Justice Legal and Parliamentary
Affairs & 2 Ors CCZ 3/17 this court,
per Bhunu JCC held as follows: -
“Zimbabwe operates a self-hierarchical judicial system
where in the ordinary run of things cases start from lower courts progressing
to the highest court of the land. Generally speaking, higher courts are loath
to intervene in unterminated proceedings within the jurisdiction of the lower
courts, tribunals or administrative authorities ….
These sentiments find expression in the words of
GUBBAY CJ in the leading case of Catholic Commission for Justice and Peace in
Zimbabwe v A-G & Ors 1993 (1) ZLR 243(S) at 250G, where the learned Chief
Justice had this to say;
“Clearly it (Supreme Court) has jurisdiction in every
type of situation which involves an alleged breach or threatened breach of one
of the provisions of the Declaration of Rights and particularly, where there is
no other judicial procedure available by which the breach can be prevented.
Compare Martin v Attorney General & Anor 1993 (1) ZLR 153 (S) (my
emphasis)””
It becomes evident from all that has been said above,
that there is merit in the respondent's contention that this is a proper case
for the application of the doctrine of ripeness and avoidance. This doctrine
holds that: -
“where it is possible to decide any case, civil or
criminal, without reaching a constitutional issue, that is the course which
should be followed”. See State v Mhlungu
1995 3 SA 867 (CC) para [59].
The doctrine was
affirmed in Zantsi v Council of State, Ciskei
& Others 1995 4 SA 615 (CC) paras [2] – [8]. It is a well-founded
principle in our law that this court will not ordinarily consider a
constitutional question unless the existence of a remedy is dependent solely
upon it. The doctrine of avoidance was fortified in Sports and Recreation Commission
v Sagittarius Wrestling Club and Anor 2001 (2) ZLR 501 (S) in which Ebrahim
JA said the following: -
“There is also merit in Mr Nherere's submission that
this case should never have been considered as a constitutional one at all.
Courts will not normally consider a constitutional question unless the
existence of a remedy depends upon it; if a remedy is available to an
applicant under some other legislative provision or on some other basis,
whether legal or factual, a court will usually decline to determine whether
there has been, in addition, a breach of the Declaration of Rights” (my
emphasis)
I find in the circumstances of this case, and based on
the authorities cited above, that the doctrine of avoidance can properly be
invoked against the applicants. A remedy was clearly available to them in the
Labour Court, had they chosen to pursue the matters pending in that court, to
their logical conclusion. In other words, they could have secured a determination
of the issue in question in the lower court, without having to 'reach' the
Constitutional Court in the manner they did.
In the final analysis, and in light of the foregoing,
I find that the application is not properly before this court and ought to be
struck off the roll.
Despite this finding which would be dispositive of
this matter, I find it pertinent and of interest to address the other ground
upon which the respondent premised its argument that this matter is not
properly before this Court. This was that the application does not raise a
constitutional question.
The respondent contends that the applicants seek to
have declared unconstitutional, conduct that was done in terms of an extant
legal provision whose constitutionality the applicants do not challenge. The
provision in question is s45(1)(b) of the Labour Act and reads as follows: -
“45
Considerations relating to registration or variation, suspension or rescission
of registration of trade unions or employer's organizations
(1) In
any determination of the registration of a trade union or employers'
organization or of the variation, suspension or rescission thereof, the
Registrar shall—
(a) …………………………………………………………..
and
(b) ensure compliance with the following requirements—
(i) a trade union shall not
represent employers;
(ii) an employers' organization shall not represent employees
other than managerial employees;
(iii) the constitution of a trade union or employers' organization
shall not be inconsistent with this Act. (my emphasis)
(2) ….
While the section as a whole is concerned with the
actions of the Registrar of Trade Unions and the considerations that he must
take into account in relation to the registration, variation, suspension and
rescission of the registration of a trade union, it is evident that subparagraphs
(i) – (iii) of its ss (1)(b) also restate the legal position relating to who a
particular trade union may or may not represent. They also distinguish
employers from employees (both as defined in the Act), in terms of who or what
should represent them. I do not find that the respondent's conduct, impugned by
the applicants, was properly guided by its interpretation of this section.
The respondent attached to its papers evidence (in the
form of a letter) of the first applicant's promotion to “the IBDC Managerial Team”
as a loans officer. The same document contains a paragraph reading as follows:
-
“EMPLOYMENT STATUS
In terms of IDBZ's structure, you are considered to be
a managerial employee”
In its definitions
section, the Act defines 'employer' thus, in relevant part: -
“employer means any person whatsoever who employs or
provides work for another person and remunerates and expressly undertakes to
remunerate him, and includes-
(a)
the manager, agent or representative
of such person who is in charge or control of the work upon which such other
person is employed;
(b)
– (e) …”
The dispute in
casu concerns whether the first applicant fits into this definition of
employer, and if he does not, whether the respondent's refusal to allow him to
participate in the affairs of the second applicant constituted a violation of
his labour rights guaranteed under s 65(2) of the Constitution. It should be
noted in this respect that the respondent is not said to have refused the first
applicant permission to join or involve himself in the affairs of an employer's
organization.
The applicants allege the same violation of the first
applicant's labour rights even if it is determined that he falls into the
category of “employer” as defined. The applicants in this respect allege in
their heads of argument that the second applicant as a trade union does not
represent the interests of non-managerial employees only, but that it also has
within its membership, employees said to be “managerial” like the first
applicant. In addition, they argue that the second applicant's constitution
does not rule out this circumstance.
The evidence before the court shows that the
respondent, having promoted the first applicant to a position ranked by it as
managerial, and relying on the plain meaning of the words
'a trade
union shall not represent employers',
contained in s 45(1)(b)(i) of
the Labour Act, engaged in the conduct complained of. They refused the first
applicant permission to involve himself in the activities and affairs of a
trade union. The respondent therefore did no more than interpret (correctly in
my view) the literal meaning of the provision in question and based its conduct
on such an understanding. It appears to me that the applicants wished the
respondent to read into the same words, a meaning that is not apparent from a
plain reading thereof. I am not
persuaded that there was a legal basis for them to do so.
As contended for
the respondent, the applicants are attacking the wrong victim. In this respect,
the respondent in my view correctly argues as follows: -
“… the applicants do not challenge the constitutionality
of the provisions of the Labour Act which, we submit, permit the respondent's
refusal of permission for first applicant's absence. A litigant may not bypass
legislation and rely directly on the Constitution without challenging the provision
in question. It is trite that conduct permitted by a law is not unlawful unless
the law has been declared invalid”
I find this to be
a persuasive argument. The learned authors of the book “Constitutional
Litigation,” Max du
Plessis, Glenn Penfold and Jason
Brickhill, define a constitutional question thus:-
“The
quintessential example of a constitutional matter is one that involves the
direct application of the Bill of Rights, that is, a constitutional challenge
to law or conduct based on an unjustified infringement of a fundamental right ….”
The applicants in casu challenge the conduct of the
respondent that was informed by the explicit language of an extant legal
provision ie, s 45(1)(b) of the Act. If by such conduct the respondent, in the
view of the applicants, violated a perceived fundamental right of theirs, then
the appropriate action to take would have been to challenge the constitutional
validity of the law in question. For it would be that law, and not conduct
based on it, that would be based on an unjustified infringement of a perceived
fundamental right. It hardly needs mentioning that the striking down of such a
law would have the result of nullifying the conduct complained of.
Accordingly, and based
on the above definition, I find that the application does not raise a
constitutional question.
On this ground,
too, I find that the application is not properly before the court and ought to
be struck off the roll.
The respondent prays for an
order of costs against the applicants, on an attorney and client scale. It
contends that the application typified a case of abuse of court process, and
that the court should show its disfavor by ordering costs on the higher scale.
The practice of this court is that
constitutional matters should not attract costs against the losing party in the
absence of compelling reasons justifying such an award. I am not persuaded that
an order for costs, more so on a higher scale, is merited under the
circumstances of this case.
Accordingly, having found that
the application is not properly before this court, I make the following order:
-
1.
The
application be and is hereby struck off the roll.
2.
There shall
be no order as costs.
CHIDYAUSIKU CJ: I agree
MALABA DCJ: I agree
ZIYAMBI JCC: I agree
GARWE JCC: I
agree
GOWORA JCC: I agree
HLATSHWAYO JCC: I agree
GUVAVA JCC: I agree
MAVANGIRA AJCC: I agree
Mbidzo,
Muchadehama & Makoni, applicants'
legal practitioner
Kantor & Immerman,
respondent's legal practitioners
