CASE ANALYSES

Case Analysis

Case Analysis

National Brewery

This was an appeal from the decision of the Industrial Relations Court holding that the Respondent was unfairly dismissed and deemed him to have been retired from the date of his dismissal. The court below ordered that the respondent be paid his benefits in accordance with his retirement package and that the said benefits would attract interest at Bank of Zambia lending rate from the date of Judgment. The respondent had been found negligent by his employer who chaired a discplinary committee after he had been previously warned on several times. He was later suspended and dismissed.

Where an employee has committed an offence he can be dismissed, no injustice arises for failure to comply with the procedure in the contract and as such an employee has no claim on that ground for wrongful dismissal or declaration that the dismissal is nullity. (Zambia National Provident Fund v.s Y.N. Chirwa (1986) ZR 70 folowed.)

Respondent not entitled to any retirement benefits.

Main Problem In The Case

Earl Ekas and Martin Feurer, Jr., on behalf of a class of plaintiffs who are employees of Carling National Breweries' Beltway plant, seek to enjoin the enforcement of a memorandum of understanding between Carling and Brewery Workers Local No. 1010, their collective bargaining representative. The understanding, which arose out of Carling's decision to shut down its Dillon Street plant, merges the seniority lists of the Beltway and Dillon Street plants, with the result that some of the Dillon Street employees will be able to continue working while some of the Beltway employees will be laid off. Finding that the union possessed the authority to enter into the understanding and that, by doing so, it did not breach its duty of fair representation to the Beltway employees, the district court denied the requested relief.

Technique to improve the situation

The memorandum of understanding was ratified at a joint meeting of the Dillon Street and Beltway employees after the Beltway employees, who claim to have been outnumbered, walked out. The Beltway employees then filed this suit, seeking an injunction against the implementation of the understanding, a declaration that the understanding is invalid, and an award of damages. In an oral opinion, the district court denied relief, and the Beltway employees appealed.

This appeal raises two issues: whether the union had the authority to agree to the dovetailing of the seniority lists at the two plants, and whether, in so agreeing, it satisfied its duty of fair representation to the Beltway employees.

The original collective bargaining agreements covering the Beltway and the Dillon Street employees did not expressly provide for the integration of the seniority lists of the two plants in the event of a consolidation of operations. Nor was any power specifically given to amend the seniority terms of the agreements, so as to permit such an integration.2 However, we think that, even in the absence of express provision, a union and an employer may assent to the modification of the terms of their existing collective ...