Fourteen truck drivers who had taken their former employer, (Ihawu Holdings) a Francistown based transport company to court last week lost their case before Francistown Industrial Court Judge, Christian Diwanga.
The applicants (drivers), Gothatamang Motswagole and thirteen others had dragged their employer to court claiming that they were unfairly dismissed on or around the 2nd of February 2011.
The disgruntled drivers who were represented by Malike Mmohe claimed that on the 26 of January 2011 they invited the management of Ihawu Holdings through a letter to a meeting to be held on the 27 of January 2011. The objective of the meeting was to discuss their conditions of service ranging from motor vehicles which were not road worthy, unpaid trip bonuses and overtime. The drivers claimed that 12 to 13 company trucks were not road worthy.
They said that the management in response accused them of indiscipline and for uttering threats. The said that the management of Ihawu Holdings refused to address the issues raised and ordered them out of its premises. The Labour Department was then called to intervene and the parties were advised to resume discussions on the issues affecting them.
Ihawu Holdings was cited as first respondent while, Abel Khupe who is the Director of the company is the second respondent.
The applicants said that on the 28 of January 2011 they were given disciplinary letters and were suspended from work and subsequently dismissed on the 2nd of February 2011 for failing to obey instructions.
They contended that their dismissal was not procedural and substantively unfair and claimed repayment of P18 000 each as compensation for unfair dismissal.
On the other hand the respondents lawyer, Nothando Mogale in her arguments, denied the dismissal of the applicants as unfair. Mogale said the applicants were dismissed for serious misconduct of refusal to obey a lawful instruction following a properly convened disciplinary enquiry.
She said that on the 25th of January 2011 a meeting was convened which was attended by management and representatives of the drivers. The purpose of the meeting was to advise the drivers of the bad financial state of the company and that the respondent could not afford salary increments and trip bonuses as they had requested. Mogale told court that on the 26 of January 2011 the respondent issued a letter to all drivers advising them of the position of the company as stated at the meeting the previous day.
“On the 27th of January 2011, the drivers upon reporting for duty did not resume their normal duties but advised the dispatch manager that they wanted to meet management again regarding the issues raised in the letter of the 24 January 2011. The Human Resources Manager advised the drivers that the position of the respondent as stated at the meeting of the 25th January 2011 had not changed and as such that management will not meet them again,” she said.
She said that the drivers who were on duty on the 27th of January 2011 refused to dispatch the manager’s instructions to go to work and effectively embarked on an illegal strike. She said following the intervention of the department of labour at the instance of the respondent, the drivers were advised to return to work and address the issues they had through negotiations as opposed to refusal to work and the applicants refused the advice from labour officers.
“The respondent made alternative arrangements, due to the drivers refusal to resume duty to get the trucks moving and deliveries made. The drivers became aggressive and as a result the Botswana Police were called by the respondent to move them from the site,” Mogale told court.
She said the drivers were suspended and ultimately dismissed from their duties Delivering judgment last week, Justice Diwanga said the applicant’s contention that they could not work on the 27th and 28th of January because they were chased out of the premises or that the trucks were not road worthy is just an afterthought. He said the applicant’s statement does not state any facts in support of the claim that they were unfairly dismissed.
“It is unlikely that an employer who chases employees out of his workplace would threaten the same employees to go back to work. It is also unlikely that in just two consecutive days about twelve to thirteen of the trucks the applicants were to drive became not road worthy. The upshot of the a foregoing is that the court finds that the applicants refused to obey the lawful and reasonable instruction given by the dispatch manager to work on the 27th and 28th of January 2011 without any lawful excuse or justification,” said the Judge.
Diwanga futher said he has no doubt that the refusal by the applicants to obey the instruction to go to work was deliberate and intended to coerce the respondent to meet their monetary demands. He said the sanction of summary dismissal of the applicants was warranted.
“The dismissal of the applicants by the respondent was both procedurally and substantively fair. The applicant’s claims are dismissed and there is no costs of the suit,” ruled the Judge.
