We have recently employed temporary workers for a construction project.

Some of these are skilled employees that have come with their own working tools and they are demanding that they be paid tools allowance for use of their tools (and not being given these by us).

Generally what is the practice in these cases for us that deal with this type of employment? Is there any legislation to that effect or is it an accepted practice in the construction industry? What are the ranges in your specific firms and do you differentiate amongst the various grades of the artisans?

The second issue is that of the provision protective clothing to temporary employees say if they are employed for a period of up to 3 months. Is it mandatory that we provide protective clothing (e.g. overalls, gumboots etc)? On this I am certain of the requirements of the law but in practice I rarely see temporary workers being provided with this. I guess because it is expensive to provide the same.

Just across I can see construction workers without any protective clothing (they are using their clothes). Illovo what were you doing with cane cutters before outsourcing the service? (I guess this is the more reason we should be outsourcing but the down side of it is that the employees are most times short changed?

I will appreciate your comments and advise on this issue. Kindly ensure that when replying you do not “Reply to all” but “Reply to sender” because others may not be interested. Alternatively please go to my blog http://georgekhaki.wordpress.com where I have posted this request and with those interested can view your responses.

Regards

George A K Khaki

My first reaction was that these people had stolen tea “leaves”. Masamba a tea if you know what I am talking about. No No No!!!!! They were literary drinking the tea probably made in Malawi but at a time they were supposed to be serving customers. Ok, That’s fine.

But they were according to the article given 24 hours notice according to their contract of employments. No opportunity was given to the supposed allegedly untoward Malawian employees because of the conditions set in their contracts of employment.

Now read the dismissal letter: sacked because the shop found that the skills level, work ethics, attitude and ability to follow instructions were not to the standard required by the shop.

Well, well. What a contradiction between the actual offence and the reasons given for the dismissal. Sounds familiar to you? I bet it does!

Most employers (unknowledgeable of course) have the misguided opinion that by making by sounding mouthful when issuing dismissal letters they are justified in their actions. The simple guiding rule in these circumstances is to simply but clearly state the offence(s) committed and relate it/them to the conditions of service or/and contract of employment. Period. No need to add unnecessary fat to the meet. It complicates issues if this goes to the courts.

The specific reasons given for the dismissal are I believe a matter of performance. If indeed Mr Price is right, it ought to be able to show that these people were warned before. This would normally be shown (in the case of Mr Price since they are new) by the issuance of written warnings. Believe you me, these are not available. For firms that have been in operation for some considerable time this would be taken care by a good performance management system which would address the issues of inadequate skills and attitudes.

Added to this, one of the characteristics of a good employer is to create an enviroment whereby an employee is given opportunities to improve his or her performance. Moreover disciplinary actions should in minor offences be aimed at giving an enabling environment and situation to facilitate the improvement of an employee’s skills rather than being unnecessarily punitive. Serious offences of course will call for punitive disciplinary action. This is where it calls for reasoning and fairness in dealing with people in the work environment

Now here comes the mother of all blunders. Meting out disciplinary action without giving the other party an opportunity to tell their side of the story. This is fundamental right in the principles of justice which all employers should never forget. This basic right is ensconced in the current Employment Act as I already argued in one of my previous posts. Therefore if the contracts of employment of the affected employees are contrally to this provision they are null and void. So madames GM and Stores Manager be prepared to pay the aggrieved employees if you are sued.

I believe I also argued in one of my articles of the need of the Ministry of Labour to start being proactive in following up cases of the breach of the Employment Act by misguided employers. Articles like these should trigger the Ministry to institute investigations and carry out necessary corrective measures as provided by the law. Inaction will only serve to encourage irresponsible employers to continue to trample down on employee rights.

This is where all employers need to ensure that people who are managing human resources in their organizations have at least basic training in HR to enable their organizations to have conditions of employment that meet the minimum of the law. Otherwise we are doing injustice to what is a very honorable profession.

It is also time that the Institute of People Management (Malawi){IPMM) resuscitated discussions with Government to have a law that requires that people that practice HR are licenced like our neighbours in Zambia. HR practice is not for every Jack and Jill. It requires certain minimum levels of qualifications and skills as well as understanding of relevant laws and internationally accepted standards.

To Mr Price I say welcome to Malawi and be prepared to compensate your ex employees for mistakes that were clearly unavoidable. And oh, I thought South Africa are well advanced in Labour Laws? Why exploit Malawians for God’s sake?

And I said to myself, do church people also discriminate? What has the position of administrator for a hospital has to do with religion? I believe the Church in particular has employed lots of people from different denominations and beliefs (or am I mistaken?). Or has the Church adopted a new policy of wanting to have people who belong to its denomination only to work for its hospitals?

Worse than this the hospital is situated in an area where the people come from very varied belief persuations besides the fact that it is intended to serve people of all beliefs and denominations. Again unless it now wants to change policy to serve only those people from its denomination.At the end of the day the Church is sending a wrong signal to its clientele.

Verdict to the Church authorities: wrong and guilty. This is agaist the Malawi Republican Constitution in general and the Employment Act(2000) in particular Section 5(1) which prohibits discrimination on amongst other grounds “religion”. And the penalty for this is MK10,000.00 and 2 years imprisonment. Even more so this is not moral and religious from a societal point of view.

If you saw this advert and you are interested apply for it even if you don’t belong to their religion. If you are not shortlisted seek remedies. If you are interviewed and youare not successful, claim that you were failed because you don’t belong to them.

On the other hand when would employing of people on the basis of religious belief apply? Most probably when you are working for a pure church organization I guess. Take for example if your were working for the Muslim Association of Malawi or the CCAP Synod of Blantyre or the Catholic Diocese of Lilongwe. This would make a lot of sense in wanting to employ a person from the same denomonation.
Lastly I think this calls for having HR professionals at every stage of the recruitment. Such a person would quickly point out this anomally.It would seem those doing this recruitment are not familiar with employment laws and internationally accepted labour standards.

At one of the dinner evenings, I was sitting with Masautso Nyathando( Past President-Zambia) and a few collegues. One of the issues that cropped up was that an employer can terminate employment by simply giving notice as as usually in the offer letter ( we sign this at the commencement of employment).

Masautso said this is legal in Zambia and the collegues except for one who was unsure said that this is true as well in Malawi.

I held and still have a different opinion. The views held above stem from what we call Common Law as regards employment contracts. This might have been true before the enactment of the Employment Act (2000) though I am aware that  even at that time some court decisions disputed this assertion.

Section VIII of the Employment Act (2000) subsection 57 is quite clear how on how an employee’s contract may be terminated.

What are your views collegues? If you have lawyer friends invite them to this blog. Let us share comments.

You are also free to post anything on this blog. This is our chat forum. Let us utilize it for the furtherment and betterment of our profession.

Topic for next time will focus on working hours that some of us noticed at the Lake