DISTRIBUTED BY VERITAS TRUST Tel: [263] [4] 794478 Fax & Messages [263] [4] 793592 E-mail: veritas@mango.zw Veritas makes every effort to ensure the provision of reliable information, but cannot take legal responsibility for information supplied. Judgment No. SC 35/18 Civil Appeal No. SC 519/17 When questioned by the court, Mr Magwaliba, for the respondent, attempted to sidestep the issue by arguing that the 2009 CBA was not the principal basis of the respondent’s case. However, this position is totally belied by the contents of the respondent’s statement of claim, dated 25 July 2012, as claimant in the arbitration proceedings. In particular, it is stated in para 23.1 that: “In 2009, through a Collective Bargaining Agreement …., the employees were awarded the following salary allowances …. . On the 27th of April 2009, through an internal correspondence, the Respondent unilaterally reduced the said allowances …. .” With specific reference to the school fees allowance, the following appears at paras 24.1 to 24.3: “In the 2009 CBA, claimants were awarded a 75 per cent recoupment of school fees for their children after production of invoices. The allowance was again unilaterally suspended in the memorandum of 27 April 2009 … . Up to date, the claimants have not received the same notwithstanding that it was agreed and captured in a binding CBA and more so that this benefit was not introduced for the first time in 2009 but had already been an existing benefit which however had been mutually stayed during the turbulent economic times of 20072008.” The same position is captured in the respondent’s prayer before the arbitrator, where it is prayed for: “(a) Payment of the 5 per cent outstanding salary allowance which is contained in 2009 Collective Bargaining Agreement to all Claimants in Respondent’s employ at the time when the salary allowances were due for payment and were unlawfully withdrawn. (b) Payment of the school fees allowances to all Claimants who are entitled to the same in terms of the said CBA of 2009.” 5