Namalomba v Securicor Malawi Ltd (IRC Matter 328 of 2004)  MWIRC 61 (13 November 2007);
IN THE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COURT OF
NUMBER IRC 328 OF 2004
SECURICOR MALAWI LTD .. ... ...RESPONDENT
ZIBELU BANDA (MS); CHAIRPERSON
Makalani; For the
for dismissal- Misconduct- Willful disobedience of company
regulations and procedures-Flouting company
to be heard- and defend oneself-Interference with employers
was employed as Security Guard. He was dismissed for insubordination.
On the material day, the applicant attended
a meeting called by
management. The applicant in the course of the meeting disrupted the
proceedings and beat up one of his colleagues
also attending the
meeting. The respondent invited the applicant for a hearing. He
defended himself. The respondent was not convinced
and they proceeded
to dismiss him. He challenged the dismissal in court.
hearing the applicant and upon hearing the respondent the court finds
that applicant indeed
violated conditions of employment by conduct that was disruptive and
violent. He was supposed to abide by instructions
prevailing at the meeting.
disobedience of company rules and regulations is serious misconduct
warranting summary dismissal; see Mussa V
Securicor (Mw) Ltd [Matter No. IRC 2/2000
(unreported)] and Mendulo V Malawi Revenue
Authority [Matter No. IRC 161/ 2003
company procedures has been held in this court to constitute valid
ground for dismissal, see Nzangaya V Unitrans
Malawi Ltd [Matter
Number IRC 32 of 2003 (unreported).
with Employers Decision
It has been held in this
Court that decisions of employers should not be tampered with if
there is no allegation that the process
to arrive at the decision was
not fair. See the case of Kachingwe &others V Southern
Bottlers Mw Ltd [Matter No.162 of 2003(unreported)].
In that case the Court quoted with approval a holding of the Labour
Appeal Court of South Africa
in the case of County Fair Foods
(Pty) Ltd V CCMA & others 11BLLR 1117 (LAC), per
with the employers sanction is only justified in the case of
..unfairness. However, the decision
of the arbitrator as to
the fairness or unfairness of the employers decision is not
reached with reference to the evidential
material that was before
the employer at the time of its decision but on the basis of all
evidential material before the arbitrator.
was heard in the instant case that the applicant had discussions with
his employer, on his conduct. He also appeared before a
hearing prior to his dismissal. There is no compelling reason to
interfere with the respondents decision.
finds that the respondent complied with the law. The reason was valid
and the procedure was fair. The dismissal was fair
section 57 of the Employment Act. Action is dismissed in its
aggrieved by this decision is at liberty to appeal to the High Court
within 30 days of this judgment.
day of November 2007 at BLANTYRE.