Legal Handling of Contract Labour Disputes

Zambian Labour Law Applies To Foreign Contracts By Dickson Jere A Zambian man was employed by an American Christian Organization in Texas, USA. He was to be based in Chipata, Eastern Province of Zambia as a missionary at Chipata Bible College. After working for a while, he was fired by his employers in America. Unhappy with the decision, he approached the Labour Office in Chipata who advised him that his contract of employment was based on the labour law of Texas. Therefore, the Zambian law labour office could not help. He then sued in the High Court, arguing that he was unfairly dismissed from his position and was never given an opportunity to be heard by his American bosses. He also contended that even though he signed the contract of employment with the US based organization, his condition of service should have been those pertaining to staff at Chipata Bible College. On the other hand, the US organization insisted that the law of Texas governed the employment of this Zambian man even though he worked in Zambia. His employers were those in Texas and not Zambia and they paid him from there. The High Court Judge had to determined as to which law was applicable to the contract of employment which was entered into with the US organization. “It is important to note that in the absence of any provision relating to the law governing the contract between the Complainant and Respondent…this Court has recourse to Zambian law,” the Judge said. The Court noted that the contract of employment involved the work to be done in Zambia and therefore Zambia law should be considered in the dispute. “The lesson to be learnt here is that a contract executed outside Zambia but performed in Zambia is subject to Zambian employment law and strict adherence to the law is required,” the Judge said. “Therefore, even contracts regulated by the Employment Code Act that are executed outside Zambia but will be performed in Zambia are subject to Zambias employment legislation,” she added. The Court held ahead and found that the dismissal of the Zambian missionary was unfair and awarded him 12 months salaries in damages. Case citation - Mwanza v The Registered Trustees of Baker Heights Church of Christ - Comp/IRCLK/72/2022 and Judgement delivered in February 2023. Lecture Notes; 1. In this case, the Court used the provisions of the repealed Industrial and Labour Relations Act to claim jurisdiction. The same provisions are now mirrored under 38(2) of the Employment Code Act which provides that employment contracts made in foreign country but relates to employment in Zambia, the Zambian law shall apply. 2. We now seem to have two different positions from the High Court on this subject matter. It will be interesting to have these tested by the appellant courts so that we have certainty on this branch of the law.

𝗖𝗮𝗻 𝗮 𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻-𝗿𝗲𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝗽𝘂𝘁𝗲 𝗶𝗻 𝗽𝗿𝗶𝘃𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗲𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗼𝘆𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗴𝗼 𝘁𝗼 𝗮𝗿𝗯𝗶𝘁𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻? Calcutta HC says yes. Where an employment contract contains both a termination clause and an arbitration clause, a post-termination dispute may be referred to arbitration. In such cases, courts take a hands-off approach under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Once a valid arbitration agreement is established, it is for the arbitrator to decide on the issue of arbitrability. ➤ 𝗕𝗮𝗰𝗸𝗴𝗿𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗱 ↳ The employee, Sreeprad Bhiwaniwala, was appointed as Senior Manager (Audit) by Grant Thornton through an employment letter dated 27 February 2023. ↳ His employment agreement included a Dispute Resolution Clause that provided for arbitration in Kolkata. ↳ On 28 June 2024, a show cause notice was issued after a complaint of sexual harassment by a female employee. ↳ The petitioner responded, and an internal inquiry report was submitted on 22 October 2024. ↳ He was subsequently terminated on 22 November 2024, with “business reasons” cited. ↳ On 2 January 2025, the employee invoked the Dispute Resolution Clause and nominated an arbitrator. ➤ 𝗘𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗼𝘆𝗲𝗲'𝘀 𝗔𝗿𝗴𝘂𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘀 ⓐ The termination was linked to the sexual harassment inquiry, not a routine business decision. ⓑ Allegations were not established, yet termination followed, damaging his reputation and career. ⓒ Invoked the Dispute Resolution Clause, claiming the dispute was arbitrable. ⓓ Argued that termination affected personal and professional interests and warranted independent adjudication. ➤ 𝗘𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗼𝘆𝗲𝗿'𝘀 𝗔𝗿𝗴𝘂𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘀 ⓐ Claimed that the employment was purely private and not statutorily protected. ⓑ Asserted that termination was valid, with 60 days’ salary paid as required by the contract. ⓒ Argued that wrongful dismissal in private employment is non-arbitrable and damages cannot be claimed. ⓓ Allowing arbitration in this dispute would be forcing a contract of personal service, which is not permissible in law. ➤ 𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗖𝗮𝗹𝗰𝘂𝘁𝘁𝗮 𝗛𝗶𝗴𝗵 𝗖𝗼𝘂𝗿𝘁 𝗛𝗲𝗹𝗱: ➊ An arbitration can be initiated over termination if the contract contains both a termination and an arbitration clause. ➋ The existence of a valid arbitration clause was sufficient to justify reference under Section 11. ➌ In the court’s view, even though the ground mentioned for termination is “business reasons”, it was not a (prima facie) case of a termination simpliciter as it seemed to be linked to internal allegations, making the dispute live and arbitrable. ➍ The Court reaffirmed the principles of competence-competence and party autonomy, limiting its own role only to referral. ➎ It held that a learned arbitrator can rule on their own jurisdiction, which includes the arbitrability of the claim. ♻️ Help your network by reposting this post ♻️ [Views are personal]

An issue which sometimes arises in practice is how to treat a situation where an employee's contract is with one entity, but in substance they’re working for another entity. Often, companies don't get around to updating the paperwork, they're just concerned with work getting done, or they fail to appreciate the significance of the distinct legal personality of corporate entities. This can be a particular issue in corporate groups where an individual has a written contract with one entity, but they’re in fact deployed in the business of another entity - without a formal novation or secondment agreement. This can lead to complications where the question of which entity in fact had an employment contract with the employee from time to time can matter -eg where issues of agency/authority arise, or where there's a dispute about whether its terms carried over to the second entity. A recent Victorian Court of Appeal decision provides useful guidance, both for the specific area of employment contracts but also for contracts more generally. In Addo v Care Legion Pty Ltd [2026] VSCA 39, Ms Addo had a written employment contract with Guiding Care Pty Ltd. A different entity, Care Legion Pty Ltd acquired the business of Guiding Care. Ms Addo didn't enter into a new written contract with Care Legion. The central issue was whether Ms Addo had a contract with Care Legion. Key points for practitioners: 1. There can be a novation absent a written agreement or express consent: [38]. 2. A novation can be inferred from conduct: [38]-[39]. In drawing an inference, no narrow or pedantic approach is warranted: [39]. 3. There may be an inferred novation where the substance of what has happened is that an employer changes the corporate vehicles used to carry out a business: [40]-[41]. 4. Where there's a novation, ordinarily all the terms of the old employment contract become terms of the new contract: [43]. This may require some adjustment to the language (eg in this case, references to Guiding Care should be replaced with references to Care Legion): at [45]. In this case, this meant that it was properly inferred that there had been a novation of the employment contract from Guiding Care to Care Legion. Addo is a useful case to have to hand whenever you have a possible novation, particularly in an employment context.

Know your Labour Laws; ⚖️ Termination & Dismissal: Are You Following the Right Procedure? ⚖️ Termination of employment is sometimes necessary, but how it is handled matters. The Employment Code Act No. 3 of 2019 sets clear guidelines for fair dismissal and termination procedures to protect both employers and employees from unfair labor practices. 🔹 What Does the Law Say? Under the Act, termination must be justified, procedurally fair, and in line with employment contracts and labor laws. Key provisions include: Notice Periods: Employers must provide written notice or payment in lieu of notice: ✅One month’s notice for employees on a monthly contract ✅Two weeks’ notice for those on a fortnightly contract ✅One week’s notice for weekly contracts ✅One day’s notice for daily wage earners Valid Grounds for Dismissal: ✅Poor performance (after proper warnings and opportunities for improvement) ✅Misconduct (must be properly investigated with a disciplinary hearing) ✅Redundancy (must follow proper procedures, including consultation and severance benefits) Unfair Dismissal Protections: 🔹Employees cannot be dismissed due to pregnancy, union membership, illness, or whistleblowing. Any dismissal without following due process can be challenged in court, leading to compensation or reinstatement orders. Ensuring Compliance & Fairness Employers must: 🔹Document all performance reviews and warnings before termination. 🔹 Conduct fair disciplinary hearings before dismissing for misconduct. 🔹 Follow redundancy procedures, including severance pay where applicable. 🔹Ensure terminations are not discriminatory or in violation of labor laws. A fair workplace benefits everyone, businesses reduce legal risks, and employees feel secure. Are termination procedures in your workplace legally compliant? Let’s discuss! #Zambia #LabourLaws #FairDismissal #EmploymentRights #HR #WorkplaceFairness #Compliance #LegalObligations

𝑬𝒎𝒑𝒍𝒐𝒚𝒆𝒓'𝒔 & 𝑪𝒐𝒏𝒕𝒓𝒂𝒄𝒕𝒐𝒓'𝒔 𝑪𝒍𝒂𝒊𝒎𝒔 𝑭𝑰𝑫𝑰𝑪 𝟐𝟎𝟏𝟕 𝑪𝒐𝒏𝒅𝒊𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏𝒔 “Claim” is a Defined Term & means “ request or assertion by one Party to other Party for entitlement or relief under any Clause of these Conditions or otherwise in connection with, or arising out of, Contract or execution of Works.” Further, 2017 Conditions separates provisions for Claims & Disputes,(both Employer’s & Contractor’s) dealt with under Clause 20. Sub-clause 20.1 identifies that claim may arise: (a) … (b) If Contractor consider that he/she is entitled to any additional payment from Employer &/or to EOT (c) If either Party considers that he/she is entitled to another entitlement or relief against other Party… Sub-clause 20.2 sets out key procedural requirements: Claiming Party shall give Notice to Engineer, describing event giving rise to claim as soon as practicable & no later than 𝟐𝟖 𝐃𝐚𝐲𝐬 after they became aware. Requirement to give Notice is further specified to be condition precedent to Party securing their entitlement(s). If Engineer considers claiming Party failed to give timely Notice, Engineer is obliged to notify claiming Party accordingly within 𝟏𝟒 𝐃𝐚𝐲𝐬 of receipt of Notice, setting out reasons. If Engineer doesn't give such notification within 𝟏𝟒 𝐃𝐚𝐲𝐬, Notice of Claim shall be deemed valid. Sub-clause 20.2.4, fully detailed Claim must be submitted within 𝟖𝟒 𝐃𝐚𝐲𝐬 after Party became aware of event. If claiming Party doesn't submit, as minimum, a statement of contractual &/or legal basis of Claim within 𝟖𝟒 𝐃𝐚𝐲𝐬 period (or as agreed to be amended by Engineer) Notice of Claim shall be deemed to have lapsed & no longer be valid & Engineer shall, within 𝟏𝟒 𝐃𝐚𝐲𝐬 of time limit expiring In event that first claim is interim (i.e. effects of event are ongoing beyond 𝟖𝟒 𝐃𝐚𝐲𝐬), claiming Party is obliged to send further 𝐈𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐦 𝐂𝐥𝐚𝐢𝐦𝐬 𝐌𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐡𝐥𝐲 𝐈𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐯𝐚𝐥𝐬. Engineer is required to give response on contractual &/or legal basis of Claim within 𝟒𝟐 𝐃𝐚𝐲𝐬 of receipt of interim Claim & in event that Engineer fails to do so, Engineer is deemed to have rejected Claim. Final Claim is required to be submitted within 𝟐𝟖 𝐃𝐚𝐲𝐬 of end of effects resulting from event, upon receipt, Engineer is obliged to consult with both Parties in an endeavour to reach agreement. Stipulated period of 𝟒𝟐 𝐃𝐚𝐲𝐬 for agreement to be achieved, though this can be amended if proposed by Engineer & agreed by Parties. If agreement isn't reached within 𝟒𝟐 𝐃𝐚𝐲𝐬, Engineer is obliged to issue a fair determination of matter within 𝟒𝟐 𝐃𝐚𝐲𝐬 after expiration of period for reaching agreement. Engineer failure to adhere to these time limits means that Engineer is deemed to have given a determination rejecting Claim. Engineer is expressly stated to carry out his duties of consultation & determination neutrally between Parties & shall not be deemed to act for Employer. #Sawy_Says

𝗬𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗛𝗥 𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗰𝘆 𝗶𝘀 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗼𝗻𝗴𝗲𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗹𝗮𝘄. 𝐀𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐁𝐨𝐦𝐛𝐚𝐲 𝐇𝐢𝐠𝐡 𝐂𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐭 𝐣𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐭. 𝘐𝘧 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘢𝘯𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘬𝘴 𝘢𝘯 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘤𝘪𝘳𝘤𝘶𝘭𝘢𝘳 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘣𝘭𝘰𝘤𝘬 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘶𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘺 𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘦—𝘪𝘵’𝘴 𝘢𝘭𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘥𝘺 𝘭𝘰𝘴𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘢𝘴𝘦. 𝐇𝐞𝐫𝐞’𝐬 𝐰𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐰𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐝𝐨𝐰𝐧: → Three retired artisans from Maharashtra Electricity Distribution Co Ltd weren’t paid their sanctioned overtime. → They had prior approvals. They had written sanction from their executive engineer. → They went to Labour Court under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. They won ₹6.13 lakhs + 12% interest. → The employer fought back, arguing the claim was “disputed” and didn’t belong in 33C(2). They lost. 𝐁𝐨𝐦𝐛𝐚𝐲 𝐇𝐂 𝐬𝐚𝐢𝐝 𝐥𝐨𝐮𝐝 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐜𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐫: *𝐈𝐟 𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐭𝐥𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐛𝐚𝐬𝐞𝐝 𝐨𝐧 𝐚 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐮𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐲 𝐫𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐚𝐥𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐝𝐲 𝐬𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐞𝐝, 𝐢𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐚 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐩𝐮𝐭𝐞.* It’s a recovery. That means Section 33C(2) applies. No new adjudication needed. No delay tactics allowed. The Court backed the artisans—and reminded employers that *𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐜𝐢𝐫𝐜𝐮𝐥𝐚𝐫𝐬 𝐜𝐚𝐧𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐫𝐢𝐝𝐞 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐮𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐲 𝐥𝐚𝐰.* 𝐊𝐞𝐲 𝐥𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐥 𝐭𝐚𝐤𝐞𝐚𝐰𝐚𝐲𝐬: → Section 59 of the Factories Act creates a *𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐮𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐲 𝐫𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭* to double-time overtime. → If it’s sanctioned and documented, it becomes 𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐩𝐮𝐭𝐞𝐝. → Section 33C(2) allows direct recovery in such cases. → Internal memos that contradict statutory law 𝐰𝐨𝐧’𝐭 𝐡𝐨𝐥𝐝 𝐮𝐩. → The writ petition was dismissed. Labour Court’s ruling stands. 📍 Decision Date: 13 June 2025 📍 Judge: Justice SG Khubalkar, Bombay HC (Aurangabad Bench) 𝐅𝐨𝐫 𝐇𝐑 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐥𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐥 𝐭𝐞𝐚𝐦𝐬: If you don’t dispute an entitlement 𝐛𝐞𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐞 sanction, it’s too late. You’ll be pulled into a Section 33C(2) claim and lose. And if you work in labour litigation, PSU operations, or manufacturing HR—this case just became required reading. 𝐘𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐝𝐞𝐟𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐨𝐧𝐥𝐲 𝐚𝐬 𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐨𝐧𝐠 𝐚𝐬 𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐝𝐨𝐜𝐮𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧. #LabourLaw #IndustrialDisputes #Section33C2 #FactoriesAct #LegalUpdate #EmploymentLaw #HRCompliance #WritPetition #StatutoryRights #OvertimePay #BombayHighCourt #LegalAwareness #WorkplaceRights #PSUCompliance #LabourCourt #HRInsights #HRProfessionals #LegalUpdate #ViralInfo #ViralPost #LegalCompliance #IRProfessionals

FIXED-TERM CONTRACTS – WORKING BEYOND THEM   BUTHELEZI V RURIK MCKAISER ATTORNEYS INC AND ANOTHER J 36/2023 ZALCJHB (03 FEBRUARY 2023) the employee entered into a two-year fixed term contract, as a Candidate Attorney of the employer, which expired on 15 September 2022. The employee continued working for the employer between 16 September and 5 October 2022, until he left the law firm. Upon leaving the firm the employee requested and received a UI-19 Form from the employer, wherein it was recorded that the reason for termination was ‘resignation’. The employee’s case was that his claim for UIF would be declined if the reason for termination was recorded as ‘resignation’, as opposed to ‘expiry of contract’, which would enable him to claim UIF benefits. He argued that there was no valid contract of employment in place, due to the ongoing and incomplete negotiations around a possible permanent appointment, following the expiry of his articles contract. On the other hand, it was the employers’ case that the fixed-term contract was tacitly renewed, which rendered the employee a permanent employee of the law firm - and thus, the employment relationship was terminated by the employee’s resignation. The employee’s efforts to get the employers to change the cause of termination on the form were unsuccessful and he accordingly approached the Labour Court (LC). The LC noted that the issue to be decided was whether the employee was an employee of the law firm for the period 16 September and 5 October 2022. If the employee was an employee, the employment relationship which was terminated on 5 October 2022, was terminated by resignation. On the other hand, if he was in “no man’s land”, pending negotiations regarding his employment after the expiry of his articles contract, then the relationship terminated when the fixed term period of the articles contract expired. Based on the facts before the Court, it was pointed out that, in light of the nature and the specific purpose of a practical vocational training contract, it is hard to accept that an articles contract can tacitly convert into permanent employment - as the Legal Practice Act does not provide for or envisage that a person can be a candidate attorney on a permanent basis. The factual circumstances did not indicate the establishment of any tacit contract between the parties to the effect that the employee became a permanent employee of the law firm after the expiry of his articles contract. The Court found that there was no resignation. It declared that the employee’s fixed-term contract expired on 15 September 2022 and that the contract was not renewed after its expiry. The employer was ordered to furnish the employee with a UI-19 form, which reflects the correct information regarding the commencement date, the termination date, and the expiry of the contract as the reason for termination. #hr #fixedtermcontract #labourlaw