IN THE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COURT OF MALAWI
MANGOCHI REGISTRY
MATTER NO. IRC PR 405 OF 2008
BETWEEN
MALUKULA .……..………………………………………………….. APPLICANT
-andASSALAM COMPLEX …………………………………………. RESPONDENT
CORAM:
R. ZIBELU BANDA(Ms); CHAIRPERSON
Chilenga; Employers Panelist
Padambo; Employees Panelist
Malijani; of Counsel for the Respondent
Applicant; Present
Gowa; Official Interpreter
JUDGMENT
1. Dismissal- Reason- Conduct -Inconsistent with the fulfilment of the
expressed or implied conditions of contract of employment such that it
would be unreasonable to require the employer to continue the
employment relationship
2. Procedure – Right to be heard
Analysis of Facts and the Law
The applicant was employed on 1 June 2005 as teacher and Boarding Master.
He was dismissed on 22 July 2007. The grounds for dismissal were lack of
cooperation and dishonesty. The particulars were that, as a teacher he was to
prepare schemes and records of work at the beginning of every term and
surrender it to the Deputy Principal to verify whether the work prepared was
in line with the syllabus. The applicant was also supposed to submit each
work for checking to verify that work prepared for the week was taught as
planned.
The court heard that the applicant did not plan his work for term one. He
only prepared his term two work two weeks into the term. Professionally
teachers can not work without schemes of work. A teacher without scheme
and records of work can not teach effectively. He would be teaching through
guess work and is likely to repeat what was already taught, in previous
lessons. The grading and testing of the students’ level of achievements would
also be below average. This is a serious misconduct warranting interdiction
or dismissal.
Teachers are supervised or inspected by the head of institution at school
level, but it is important that students are taught to national standards. This
is because both government and private students are examined by one
examination board (MANEB). Therefore government Inspectors carry out
school inspections to ensure that national teaching standards are complied
with. They do not inform the school when they want to carry out an
inspection. This is because they would like to find the school in its daily real
situation. This helps the inspectors to give correct and right advice to the
school management.
However when Inspectors visited the respondent’s institution, Mr. Malukula,
the applicant refused to submit his work for inspection. He displayed a
hostile attitude towards inspectors and his superiors. This behaviour was
inconsistent with the fulfilment of the expressed or implied conditions of his
contract of employment such that it would be unreasonable to require the
employer to continue the employment relationship, section 59(1)(a)
Employment Act 2000.
The Court further heard that the applicant as a Boarding Master was
entrusted to take charge of school property including food. The Deputy
Principal caught Cooks carrying cooked food (rice) to their homes from school.
When asked it was discovered that they had been authorised by the applicant
to take boarding school food home. However the applicant did not have
authority to give out boarders’ food to workers at the school. When the
applicant was asked to explain, he failed to give convincing response. This
conduct was a violation of school regulations which provided that food can be
consumed within the school premises but not taken out of the school.
Further the Court heard that the applicant as a Boarding Master was not
responsible to collect tuition from students. It was the duty of the Principal to
collect fees. However the applicant without authority and dishonestly
received MK43 500- 00 school fees paid in by parents and never surrendered
it to the school authorities. He appropriated it.
It was also heard that the applicant as a teacher was supposed to cover a
whole term’s planned work. Examination board (MANEB) examines students
on assumption that they have covered the whole syllabus. The applicant
however dishonestly represented to the school management that he had
covered 75% of the work when in actual sense he had only covered 47% of
junior certificate syllabus.
2
Finding
The above incidents prove that the applicant was a dishonest person and no
employer would be expected to continue an employment contract with him.
The applicant was given a chance to explain himself on the issues but his
explanation was not satisfactory. The Court finds that the reasons for
dismissal were valid and that the procedure prior to dismissal was fair. This
action is therefore dismissed in its entirety.
DATED this 5th day of May 2009 at MANGOCHI.
Rachel Zibelu Banda
CHAIRPERSON
Joel E Chilenga
EMPLOYERS’ PANELIST
Maxwell R Padambo
EMPLOYEES’ PANELIST
3