IN THE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COURT OF
MALAWI

PRINCIPAL
REGISTRY

MATTER
NUMBER IRC 328 OF 2004

BETWEEN

NAMALOMBA……………………..……...………………………….....
APPLICANT

-and-

SECURICOR MALAWI LTD………………..………...……………...RESPONDENT

CORAM: R.
ZIBELU BANDA (MS); CHAIRPERSON

MRN PADAMBO;
EMPLOYEES’ PANELIST

JE CHILENGA;
EMPLOYERS’ PANELIST

Makalani; For the
Respondent

Applicant; Present

Ngalauka;
Official Interpreter

JUDGMENT

1. 
   Dismissal-Reason
   for dismissal- Misconduct- Willful disobedience of company
   regulations and procedures-Flouting company
   procedures-Insubordination
2. 
   Procedure- Opportunity
   to be heard- and defend oneself-Interference with employer’s
   decision.

Facts

The applicant
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.

Upon
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
and regulations
prevailing at the meeting.

Willful
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
(unreported)].

Flouting
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).

Interference
with Employer’s 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 [1999]11BLLR 1117 (LAC), per
Kroon JA:

“[interference]
with the employer’s sanction “ is only justified in the case of
……..unfairness.” However, the decision
of the arbitrator as to
the fairness or unfairness of the employer’s 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.”

It
was heard in the instant case that the applicant had discussions with
his employer, on his conduct. He also appeared before a
disciplinary
hearing prior to his dismissal. There is no compelling reason to
interfere with the respondent’s decision.

Finding

The Court
finds that the respondent complied with the law. The reason was valid
and the procedure was fair. The dismissal was fair
according to
section 57 of the Employment Act. Action is dismissed in its
entirety.

Any party
aggrieved by this decision is at liberty to appeal to the High Court
within 30 days of this judgment.

Made
this 14^th
day of November 2007 at BLANTYRE.

Rachel
Zibelu Banda

CHAIRPERSON

Maxwell
RN Padambo

EMPLOYEES’ PANELIST

Joel
Evalisto Chilenga

EMPLOYERS’ PANELIST