GUMBO v NORTON-SELOUS RURAL COUNCIL 1992 (2) ZLR 403 (S)

Flynote

Employment — Labour Relations Act 16 of 1985 — whether Act applicable to employment conditions of officer of rural council — Labour Relations D (General Conditions of Employment) (Termination of Employment Regulations, 1985 (SI 371 of 1985) — whether applies to dismissal of employees of rural council

Statutory interpretation — whether certain labour regulations apply to various parastatals and to rural and urban councils — conclusion depends upon wording of statutes relating to particular institution

Headnote

Section 3 of the Labour Relations Act 1985 provides that the Act applies to all employers and employees "except those whose conditions of employment are otherwise provided for by or under the Constitution".

By virtue of s 3(1) of the Interpretation Act [Chapter 1], "Act" includes any statutory instrument in force under it.

The Labour Relations (General Conditions of Employment) (Termination of Employment) Regulations, 1985 ("the Dismissal Regulations") were promulgated under the Labour Relations Act. Under ss 2 and 3 of the Dismissal Regulations, an employee to whom the Labour Relations Act applied could only be dismissed with Ministerial approval but he could be suspended pending a ruling by a labour relations officer.

The appellant, who was an employee of the Norton-Selous Rural Council, had been dismissed by the Council acting in terms of s 62(3) of the Rural Councils Act [Chapter 211]. The Minister of Labour's approval had not been sought for the dismissal and neither had the matter been referred to a labour relations officer. If the Labour Relations Act and the Dismissal Regulations applied in this case, then the dismissal would have been unlawful.

Held, that the conditions of employees of rural councils were not otherwise provided by the Constitution. Therefore the Labour Relations Act and the Dismissal Regulations applied to such employees and as no Ministerial approval for the dismissal had been obtained and the matter had not been referred to a labour relations officer, the dismissal had been unlawful.

Held, further, that in deciding whether the Labour Relations Act and the Dismissal Regulations applied to particular institutions set up by statute the specific wording of the relevant statutes setting them up had to be examined.

Held, further, that whereas special legislative provisions had been passed allowing urban councils to obtain permission for dismissal from the Minister in charge of local government instead of from the Labour Minister and to make inapplicable to parastatals the provisions the Labour Relations Act, no such special legislative provision had been passed in relation to rural councils.

Held, further, that the effect of s 3 of the Labour Relations Act was to take away from employers certain powers they originally had over their employees. Whether the employers had these powers by virtue of private contract or by reason of statutory enactment was immaterial. These powers were now to be exercised under the overall control and supervision of the central government. The only employer exempted from this takeover of powers was, logically enough, the central government itself. The conditions of various officers of central government were otherwise provided for by or under the Constitution. These included members of the public service, the police, the defence forces, the judiciary, the Ombudsman and his deputy, the Chiefs, the Comptroller and the Auditor-General and the Attorney-General and his deputy.