HomeNewsCourtsTM presses further delays on payments

TM presses further delays on payments


A LABOUR Court appeal by TM Supermarkets against an arbitration award for three of its managers seemed to be in disarray, as the chain said it had not been informed of the hearing date in advance and asked that it be further pushed back.


Itayi Nkomo, Thembinkosi Nyathi and Khumbula Tshili were awarded $2 390 each by an arbitrator last October, but the company insists on challenging the award.

The managers on January 23 2013 got an order from the Bulawayo High Court judge Justice Martin Makonese, who ordered TM to pay them $2 390 each as back pay.

This was after an independent arbitrator had awarded them that amount.

TM reportedly refused to pay the managers the money, allegedly as punishment for refusing to work on Unity Day in 2009.

The company at some point appealed at the court before the Labour Court president judge Justice Sello Nare, suspending a ruling by an arbitrator compelling TM Supermarkets to pay three managers salaries and bonuses.

The managers later filed an application seeking the order that compelled Nare to recuse himself from dealing with the matter on grounds he was an interested party, since he was supplying the supermarket with vegetables.

Their appeal was granted and Nare’s ruling was set aside, paving way for the managers to get paid as per initial order granted by Makonese.

However, following the dismissal of Nare’s ruling, the company has since appealed at the Labour Court for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, where the company wants to seek an order nullifying a ruling which granted the award to the managers.

Their appeal for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court was supposed to be heard on Monday by the Bulawayo Labour Court, Judge president Mercy Moya Machanga, but it failed to take off, as TM seemed not ready.

A copy notification to the three managers dated February 20 2015 states that the managers were being notified that the application would be heard on Monday.

But yesterday, the company represented by Coghlan and Walsh backtracked, saying they received notification of the hearing late and could not prepare their submissions and asked for a postponement to a later date.

A new date is yet to be set.

Recent Posts

Stories you will enjoy

Recommended reading