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 32/18 Civil Appeal No. SC 807/16 subject to any modifications she or he may make in terms of s 12 (C) (9) of the Act. Until then, the employees remain employees of the employer and entitled to their salaries and benefits” It is not in dispute that this process is not what the parties in casu engaged in. As indicated above the genesis of the dispute was a letter written to the respondent in June 2007, informing him of a restructuring exercise within the appellant, and the abolishment of his post. Thereafter the parties engaged in a process that they termed ‘retrenchment’ and in terms of which a package of benefits payable to the respondent, was negotiated. When a dispute arose as to the total package due to the respondent, the parties by agreement, referred the matter to Arbitrator Bvumbe, whose terms of reference have been set out above. According to the respondent’s own outline of the correct process to follow in the event of a retrenchment, this was the stage at which the parties would have referred the matter to the Retrenchment Board. They chose not to do so. Arbitrator Bvumbe prefixed his award with the following comment: “On this occasion (5 April 2008 the date of referral of the matter to him) the parties endorsed the referral to me as a single arbitrator. They also agreed on the terms of reference which were to be considered for the finalisation of the dispute between the parties, which were …. The parties concurred that the effective date of retrenchment would be the date of the arbitration award.” (my emphasis) This statement by the arbitrator significantly refers to ‘finalisation of the dispute’ between the parties. This suggests clearly that neither side contemplated engaging in the 6