CENTRAL BANK LOSES, ORDERED TO REINSTATE WORKER

MBABANE – The Industrial Court has refused to endorse the Central Bank of Eswatini’s (CBE) bid to overturn an acquittal decision reached by the chairperson of the hearing of its employee who was charged with misconduct.

Instead, Judge Abande Dlamini ordered the CBE to unconditionally allow Mandla Lushaba, who is employed in the Security Division as a Systems Technician, back to work. The court declared the bank’s refusal to allow Lushaba, who was charged with misconduct,  back to work as unlawful, arbitrary and unreasonable. Lushaba faced two disciplinary charges after he was accused by his employer of removing critical video footage without authority from the bank’s Matsapha Cash Centre. He was said to have made false statements when questioned about the removal of the footage. The chairman of his discplinary hearing, Zweli Shabangu, found him not guilty and recommended that he be reinstated. According to the bank’s disclinary code and procedure, the chairperson has to reach a decision or verdict and that should conclude the process.

It is not provided for in the disciplinary code that the chairperson makes a recommendation. Instead of allowing Lushaba to return to work after the ruling of the chairperson, the CBE invited him to show cause why the bank should adopt the recommendation that he should be reinstated. The code does not make a provision for this type of intervention by the employer. CBE General Manager-Human Resources and Administration Bonisiwe Masuku said, based on the bank’s inherent common law right predicated on fairness, it found it appropriate to intervene and seek to substitute the decision of the chairperson. The bank, according to Judge Dlamini, by so doing wanted to act completely contrary to the disciplinary code which it agreed to with the Swaziland Union of Financial Institutions (SUFIAW).

“What the bank seeks to do is not sanctioned by the disciplinary code and procedure. The chairperson, in line with his mandate in terms of the disciplinary code and procedure, duly made his decision and that should have been the end of the matter. “This court, as a matter of fact, will not allow the respondent bank to unilaterally abrogate to itself the right to alter the decision of the chairperson since such action is not sanctioned and/or permitted by the mutually agreed disciplinary code and procedure,” said the judge. Before Lushaba approached the court, SUFIAW Secretary General Jabu Shiba wrote to the bank reminding it that the disciplinary code was never intended to grant it a licence to arrogate itself powers it did not have. Shiba also brought it to the attention of the bank that Article 2.3.1.5 of the disciplinary code gives direction to what should happen after the handing down of the decision. She said it was not open to the bank to overturn the chairman’s decision.

Post your comment

Your name:

Your e-mail address:

Add your comments:

Please enter the code you see in the image:

Image:

Code: