You Can’t Fire Workers Over Bad Tools – Court

Não é difícil assumir que jogar por dinheiro é realmente lucrativo. Para apostar de verdade, você precisa criar uma página pessoal. O registro no site oficial Pin Up pinup-entrar.com envolve o preenchimento de um pequeno formulário e não leva muito tempo. Você só tem que realizar 2 ações.
You Can’t Fire Workers Over Bad Tools – Court
By Dickson Jere
Multichoice Zambia Limited is a company that provides pay television services and repair of decoders. It is a subsidiary of Multichoice South Africa Holdings. Sometime in 2019, the company changed its procurement policy and centralized it by implementing the Systems, Applications and Products in Data processing (SAP). Under this system, all procurement of decoders and spares was to be done through South Africa office.
Tutu Zulu was the Decoder Repairs Manager at Multichoice Zambia. His performance was superb until the SAP system was introduced. He started failing to meet deadlines in repairs of decoders by his department because of delayed procurement of spare parts. However, the company placed the blame on him and accused him of underperformance.
After being charged and subjected to disciplinary proceedings at the company, he was eventually fired for below par performance in his job. He sued in the High Court, contending that he underperformed because of the new SAP system, which he had no control of.
The Judge, after hearing both sides, found that the dismissal was wrongful and unfair and ordered that he be paid 36 months salary as compensation because it was difficult to find similar jobs in Zambia. Simply, Court awarded damages beyond normal in employment cases.
Multichoice appealed to the Court of Appeal, arguing that the manager was fired for underperforming and that even the 36 months salary was too huge.
Three Judges heard the appeal and determined thus;
“Although the Respondent was charged with poor performance, the Appellant failed to distinguish between deficiencies attributable to the Respondent and those stemming from institutional failures,” the Judges said.
“It is unreasonable for an employer to cite an employee’s non performance when the requisite tools, resources, and systems necessary for his discharge of duties are unavailable due to internal inefficiencies,” the Judges said.
The Court noted that before the change in procurement system at Multichoice, the Manager had even received a high score of performance in appraisals, which indicated he was good at his job.
“We are of the view that the Respondent was dismissed following a process that relied on conflicting procedures, and ultimately penalized for certain failures arising from SAP, which were beyond his control,” the Court said.
The Judges confirmed that he should be paid 36 months salary as compensation with interest for loss of the permanent and pensionable contract.
Case citations – Multichoice Zambia Limited v Tutu Zulu – Appeal No. 157/2023 and Judgement delivered last month.
Lecture notes;
1. This is a good case in which the employer must make sure that internal processes and procedures do not hinder the performance of the employee before being blamed for underperforming. Always look at the reasons for sudden change in performance of the employee before accusing one of poor performance.
2. This case underscores the legal principle that Courts can give damages beyond what the contract and notice period may have stipulated if it is shown that there is a good reason for doing so. In this case, justice demanded that 36 months salary was best to remedy the damages.

source