Employment and Labour Relations Act. Cap. 366 - Section 40

[ThnkingAloud]

Dear all,

My reading and interpretation of Section 40 of the Employment and Labour Relations Act. Cap. 366 R.E. 2019 tells me that it was the intention of the Legislature to make it mandatory for any employee to be re-instated by the employer after a finding by a tribunal or court of law that the employee's termination was both substantively and procedurally unfair.

I am saying so because of the following scenarios:

Scenario One:
Re-instatement - The financial benefits payable to the re-instated employee are remuneration, as defined in the Act, for the whole period that the employee has been out of work.

Scenario Two:
For whatever reason that the employee has not been re-instated:
Reason one - the employer has refused to re-instate the employee

- Here the financial benefits that accrued to the employee are similar to those in scenario one above.

Reason two - the employee has decided not to continue with the employer.

- Here the financial benefits that accrue to the employee are restricted to not less than twelve months' compensation based on remuneration plus other statutory terminal benefits.

Consider the following:
1. In Scenario One the employee has been out of work for 50 months and is re-instated, the financial benefits will be calculated on the basis of 50 months. This will be similar to Scenario Two - Reason One.

2. In Scenario Two - Reason Two - the financial benefits that accrue to the employee will be based on the pleadings of the employee OR restricted to not less than 12 months' remuneration BUT not necessarily 50 months, a period during which the employee has been out of work.

Thus, in consideration 1 above the employee will benefit more unlike in consideration 2 where re-instatement is not opted for by the employee.

Can anyone assist to analyze the wording of the section and my analysis and advise please?

Since it was the intention of legislature for the employee to benefit the same way in both scenarios, it means it is unfair to restrict the compensation payable to the same employee, as explained above, when the employee is legally terminated by the court for reason that the employer chose not to re-instate OR the employee decided not to be re-instated.

If I were a judge, I would rule, in Scenario Two, that the compensation should be paid in addition to unpaid remuneration for a maximum of 50 months' remuneration to be fair with Scenario One Ceteris Paribus.

Am I making myself clear please?

 

[Mkumbwa Jr]

Mambo ya akina Kibatala hayo

 

[ThnkingAloud]

Mambo ya akina Kibatala hayo

Ha ha ha ha.

 

[Prosperity96]

Dear all,

My reading and interpretation of Section 40 of the Employment and Labour Relations Act. Cap. 366 R.E. 2019 tells me that it was the intention of the Legislature to make it mandatory for any employee to be re-instated by the employer after a finding by a tribunal or court of law that the employee's termination was both substantially and procedurally unfair.

I am saying so because of the following scenarios:

Scenario One:
Re-instatement - The financial benefits payable to the re-instated employee are remuneration, as defined in the Act, for the whole period that the employee has been out of work.

Scenario Two:
For whatever reason that the employee has not been re-instated:
Reason one - the employer has refused to re-instate the employee

- Here the financial benefits that accrued to the employee are similar to those in scenario one above.

Reason two - the employee has decided not to continue with the employer.

- Here the financial benefits that accrue to the employee are restricted to not less than twelve months' compensation based on remuneration plus other statutory terminal benefits.

Consider the following:
1. In Scenario One the employee has been out of work for 50 months and is re-instated, the financial benefits will be calculated on the basis of 50 months. This will be similar to Scenario Two - Reason One.

2. In Scenario Two - Reason Two - the financial benefits that accrue to the employee will be based on the pleadings of the employee OR restricted to not less than 12 months' remuneration BUT not necessarily 50 months, a period during which the employee has been out of work.

Thus, in consideration 1 above the employee will benefit more unlike in consideration 2 where re-instatement is not opted for by the employee.

Can anyone assist to analyze the wording of the section and my analysis and advise please?

Since it was the intention of legislature for the employee to benefit the same way in both scenarios, it means it is unfair to restrict the compensation payable to the same employee, as explained above, when the employee is legally terminated by the court for reason that the employer chose not to re-instate OR the employee decided not to be re-instated.

If I were a judge, I would rule, in Scenario Two, that the compensation should be for a maximum of 50 months' remuneration to be fair with Scenario One Ceteris Paribus.

Am I making myself clear please?

Brilliant Reasoning

 

[ThnkingAloud]

My second opinion is to rule that the employee should be paid all the remuneration missed from the date of termination to the date of paying the same IN ADDITION to compensation as per the wording of Section 40(2) of the Employment and Labour Relations Act, Cap. 366. R.E. 2019.

In fact this is what was decided by the High Court before Hon. Mgetta, J - See page 11 to page 12 in Pascal Mgawe vs Tanzania Electrical Supply Company Ltd(tanesco) (Application for Labour Revision 3 of 2020) 2021 TZHC 5439 (16 July 2021)

 

[ThnkingAloud]

Kifungu cha 40(1)(c) cha Sheria ya Ajira na Mahusiano Kazini (Labour and Employment Act. (Cap. 366) R.E. 2019) kwa kifupi ELRA kimefutwa na kifungu cha 11 cha The Labour Laws (Amendments) Act 2024 iliyotangazwa kwenye Gazeti la Serikali No. 34 Vol. 105 la tarehe 5 November 2024, na kuwekwa kifungu kipya cha 40(1)(c).

Nawapongeza wote walioshiriki katika mchakato wa kukiunda upya kifungu cha 40(1)(c)

Lakini kifungu hiki kilichoundwa upya kikisomwa kwa pamoja na kifungu cha 40(3) cha ELRA kinaongeza upendeleo uliokuwepo mwanzo hata kabla ya kuundwa upya. Upendeleo huu uliofichika unampa finacial reliefs zaidi mfanyakazi anayerudishwa kazini baada ya kuchishwa kazi isivyo halali (unfairly) kuliko yule ambaye harudishwi kazini (kwa sababu ya kupenda mwenyewe au kwa sababu nyingine yoyote kama mahakama ilivyoamua) baada na yeye kuachishwa kazi pia isivyo halali (unfairly).

Napendekeza kifungu hiki kiangaliwe upya na kurekebishwa kwa nia ya kutoa finacial reliefs zinazofanana kwa wote wawili yaani yule anayerudishwa kazini na yule ambaye harudishwi kazini baada ya wote kuachishwa kazi isivyo halali.

Ninajua sababu kubwa hoja kuwa kuna ku-revive mkataba wa kazi kwa yule anayerudishwa kazini. Lakini ni muhimu pia kuona kuwa yule ambaye harudishwi kazini alikuwa ndani ya mkataba halali kwa sababu aliachishwa kazi isivyo halali na kinyume cha mkataba. Kwa hiyo mkataba wake unakoma uhalali wake tarehe ya maamuzi ya mwisho ya mahakama.

Lakini pia baada ya wote kuonekana waliachishwa kazi isivyo halali maana yake ni kuwa mikataba yao ilikuwa bado halali mpaka baada ya tarehe ya maamuzi ya mwisho ya mahakama kutoka. Hivyo finacial reliefs zao hazitakiwi kuwa tofauti

Naomba wanaohusika waliangalie hii hoja yangu kwa makini na kuifanya kazi.

Wataalamu wa sheria mnaweza kunisaidia kama nimejielekeza vibaya. Mnisamehe.

Nawasilisha.

 

[Mlimbo48]

Kifungu cha 40(1)(c) cha Sheria ya Ajira na Mahusiano Kazini (Labour and Employment Act. (Cap. 366) R.E. 2019) kwa kifupi ELRA kimefutwa na kifungu cha 11 cha The Labour Laws (Amendments) Act 2024 iliyotangazwa kwenye Gazeti la Serikali No. 34 Vol. 105 la tarehe 5 November 2024, na kuwekwa kifungu kipya cha 40(1)(c).

Nawapongeza wote walioshiriki katika mchakato wa kukiunda upya kifungu cha 40(1)(c)

Lakini kifungu hiki kilichoundwa upya kikisomwa kwa pamoja na kifungu cha 40(3) cha ELRA kinaongeza upendeleo uliokuwepo mwanzo hata kabla ya kuundwa upya. Upendeleo huu uliofichika unampa finacial reliefs zaidi mfanyakazi anayerudishwa kazini baada ya kuchishwa kazi isivyo halali (unfairly) kuliko yule ambaye harudishwi kazini (kwa sababu ya kupenda mwenyewe au kwa sababu nyingine yoyote kama mahakama ilivyoamua) baada na yeye kuachishwa kazi pia isivyo halali (unfairly).

Napendekeza kifungu hiki kiangaliwe upya na kurekebishwa kwa nia ya kutoa finacial reliefs zinazofanana kwa wote wawili yaani yule anayerudishwa kazini na yule ambaye harudishwi kazini baada ya wote kuachishwa kazi isivyo halali.

Ninajua sababu kubwa hoja kuwa kuna ku-revive mkataba wa kazi kwa yule anayerudishwa kazini. Lakini ni muhimu pia kuona kuwa yule ambaye harudishwi kazini alikuwa ndani ya mkataba halali kwa sababu aliachishwa kazi isivyo halali na kinyume cha mkataba. Kwa hiyo mkataba wake unakoma uhalali wake tarehe ya maamuzi ya mwisho ya mahakama.

Lakini pia baada ya wote kuonekana waliachishwa kazi isivyo halali maana yake ni kuwa mikataba yao ilikuwa bado halali mpaka baada ya tarehe ya maamuzi ya mwisho ya mahakama kutoka. Hivyo finacial reliefs zao hazitakiwi kuwa tofauti

Naomba wanaohusika waliangalie hii hoja yangu kwa makini na kuifanya kazi.

Wataalamu wa sheria mnaweza kunisaidia kama nimejielekeza vibaya. Mnisamehe.

Nawasilisha.

Shukrani Kwa ufafanuzi mzuri,Naomba kuuliza mtu aliyesimamishwa Kazi isivyo halali na alikuwa analipwa mshahara akirudishwa kazini utaratibu wa fidia unakuwaje.

 

[Prosperity96]

Shukrani Kwa ufafanuzi mzuri,Naomba kuuliza mtu aliyesimamishwa Kazi isivyo halali na alikuwa analipwa mshahara akirudishwa kazini utaratibu wa fidia unakuwaje.

Utarataibu wa yeye kurudi kazini ulisababishwa na nini? 1. Amri ya Mahakama? kama ni kwa sababu hii basi inamaana CMA/Mahakama tayari ilitoa maelekezo kama Mfanyakazi kulipwa stahiki zake(mshahara au likizo) ambazo alikuwa hakupewa na mwajiri katika kipindi chote. Hivyo nashauri ukarejelee kusoma nakala ya hukumu imetoa amri gani. 2. Mwajiri kupisha uchunguzi wa Makosa yanayotokana na kazi
(nidhamu)? iko na utaratibu wake kwani mwajiri akimsimamisha kazi mfanyakazi sheria inamtaka kumlipa mshahara na stahiki zingine zote mfanyakazi katika kipindi chote ambacho atakuwa amesimamishwa kazi.(Mara nyingine haizidi Mwezi 1- kama ni kwa ajili ya kupisha uchunguzi wa makosa ya kinidhamu).

 

[Prosperity96]

Kifungu cha 40(1)(c) cha Sheria ya Ajira na Mahusiano Kazini (Labour and Employment Act. (Cap. 366) R.E. 2019) kwa kifupi ELRA kimefutwa na kifungu cha 11 cha The Labour Laws (Amendments) Act 2024 iliyotangazwa kwenye Gazeti la Serikali No. 34 Vol. 105 la tarehe 5 November 2024, na kuwekwa kifungu kipya cha 40(1)(c).

Nawapongeza wote walioshiriki katika mchakato wa kukiunda upya kifungu cha 40(1)(c)

Lakini kifungu hiki kilichoundwa upya kikisomwa kwa pamoja na kifungu cha 40(3) cha ELRA kinaongeza upendeleo uliokuwepo mwanzo hata kabla ya kuundwa upya. Upendeleo huu uliofichika unampa finacial reliefs zaidi mfanyakazi anayerudishwa kazini baada ya kuchishwa kazi isivyo halali (unfairly) kuliko yule ambaye harudishwi kazini (kwa sababu ya kupenda mwenyewe au kwa sababu nyingine yoyote kama mahakama ilivyoamua) baada na yeye kuachishwa kazi pia isivyo halali (unfairly).

Napendekeza kifungu hiki kiangaliwe upya na kurekebishwa kwa nia ya kutoa finacial reliefs zinazofanana kwa wote wawili yaani yule anayerudishwa kazini na yule ambaye harudishwi kazini baada ya wote kuachishwa kazi isivyo halali.

Ninajua sababu kubwa hoja kuwa kuna ku-revive mkataba wa kazi kwa yule anayerudishwa kazini. Lakini ni muhimu pia kuona kuwa yule ambaye harudishwi kazini alikuwa ndani ya mkataba halali kwa sababu aliachishwa kazi isivyo halali na kinyume cha mkataba. Kwa hiyo mkataba wake unakoma uhalali wake tarehe ya maamuzi ya mwisho ya mahakama.

Lakini pia baada ya wote kuonekana waliachishwa kazi isivyo halali maana yake ni kuwa mikataba yao ilikuwa bado halali mpaka baada ya tarehe ya maamuzi ya mwisho ya mahakama kutoka. Hivyo finacial reliefs zao hazitakiwi kuwa tofauti

Naomba wanaohusika waliangalie hii hoja yangu kwa makini na kuifanya kazi.

Wataalamu wa sheria mnaweza kunisaidia kama nimejielekeza vibaya. Mnisamehe.

Nawasilisha.

uko na correct reasoning lakini kuna vitu ni vyema kuviangalia pia, ulishajiuliza ni katika mazingira gani relief hizo zinatolewa? na wakati gani hizo compromises zinafanyika?

 

[MFALME WETU]

"de minimis non curat lex"

 

[Mlimbo48]

Utarataibu wa yeye kurudi kazini ulisababishwa na nini? 1. Amri ya Mahakama? kama ni kwa sababu hii basi inamaana CMA/Mahakama tayari ilitoa maelekezo kama Mfanyakazi kulipwa stahiki zake(mshahara au likizo) ambazo alikuwa hakupewa na mwajiri katika kipindi chote. Hivyo nashauri ukarejelee kusoma nakala ya hukumu imetoa amri gani. 2. Mwajiri kupisha uchunguzi wa Makosa yanayotokana na kazi
(nidhamu)? iko na utaratibu wake kwani mwajiri akimsimamisha kazi mfanyakazi sheria inamtaka kumlipa mshahara na stahiki zingine zote mfanyakazi katika kipindi chote ambacho atakuwa amesimamishwa kazi.(Mara nyingine haizidi Mwezi 1- kama ni kwa ajili ya kupisha uchunguzi wa makosa ya kinidhamu).

Nashukuru Kwa maelezo,Nakala ya hukumu ilitoka Kwa mamlaka ya nidhamu ngazi ya wilaya.Kwenye nakala iliandikwa imeamuliwa urejeshwe kazini,Aidha stahiki zako zitaanzia ilipohitimishwa shauri hili,Kilichotokea hatua ya kusimamisha kazi haikufuata utaratibu wa kusikiliza, Baada ya kutolewa hati ya mashtaka ilipita miezi 12 hakuna kilichofanyika na hakukuwa na kibali cha katibu mkuu Utumishi cha kuongeza muda,Mwisho maamuzi yakawa kurudishwa kazini,Mshahara walikuwa wanalipa wote,Swala la fidia halikuandikwa.

 

[ThnkingAloud]

uko na correct reasoning lakini kuna vitu ni vyema kuviangalia pia, ulishajiuliza ni katika mazingira gani relief hizo zinatolewa? na wakati gani hizo compromises zinafanyika?

Kwa maoni yangu ungesaidia kuelezea kidogo kwa uelewa wako na kutoa mifano pia ili wote tuelimike kwa pamoja. Ni jambo jema sana kuelimisha angalau wanaoelewa ili nao waelimishe wenzao. Kwa kufanya hivyo na wewe unazidi kuelimika zaidi.

 

[Prosperity96]

Nashukuru Kwa maelezo,Nakala ya hukumu ilitoka Kwa mamlaka ya nidhamu ngazi ya wilaya.Kwenye nakala iliandikwa imeamuliwa urejeshwe kazini,Aidha stahiki zako zitaanzia ilipohitimishwa shauri hili,

nafikiri iko wazi kwamba stahiki zako za nyuma hautalipwa bali utaanza kulipwa kuanzia tarehe ambayo maamuzi ya kamati ya Nidhamu yametoka. Mfano Maamuzi yametolewa tarehe 25-02-2025 na mwajiri alipewa maelekezo ya kukurudisha kazini,na endapo mwajiri akakurudisha kazini tarehe 05-03-2025 itakapofika mwishoni mwa mwezi wa 3 mwajiri atapaswa kukulipa mshahara au stahiki za kuanzia tarehe 25-02-2025 hadi mwezi wa 3 kulingana na siku ambazo utakuwa umeingia kazini.

Kilichotokea hatua ya kusimamisha kazi haikufuata utaratibu wa kusikiliza, Baada ya kutolewa hati ya mashtaka ilipita miezi 12 hakuna kilichofanyika na hakukuwa na kibali cha katibu mkuu Utumishi cha kuongeza muda,Mwisho maamuzi yakawa kurudishwa kazini,Mshahara walikuwa wanalipa wote,

nafikiri hapa ulikuwa unajaribu kusimulia kilichotokea,ila naomba kukuuliza si umesharudi kazi?na unalipwa stahiki zako kama kawaida? kama ndio basi hakuna haja ya kuchimbua mambo yaliyopita.

Swala la fidia halikuandikwa.

kama fidia haikuandikwa basi huwezi kudai au kulipwa chochote katika shauri hilo.

 

[Prosperity96]

Kwa maoni yangu ungesaidia kuelezea kidogo kwa uelewa wako na kutoa mifano pia ili wote tuelimike kwa pamoja. Ni jambo jema sana kuelimisha angalau wanaoelewa ili nao waelimishe wenzao. Kwa kufanya hivyo na wewe unazidi kuelimika zaidi.

ntajitahidi kufanya hivyo kila ninapotamuda,maana kutype kwa muda mrefu inasumbua angalau kama kungekuwa na Voicerecording ingesaidia sana. Ntajitahidi kuja na majibu soon

 

[Mlimbo48]

nafikiri iko wazi kwamba stahiki zako za nyuma hautalipwa bali utaanza kulipwa kuanzia tarehe ambayo maamuzi ya kamati ya Nidhamu yametoka. Mfano Maamuzi yametolewa tarehe 25-02-2025 na mwajiri alipewa maelekezo ya kukurudisha kazini,na endapo mwajiri akakurudisha kazini tarehe 05-03-2025 itakapofika mwishoni mwa mwezi wa 3 mwajiri atapaswa kukulipa mshahara au stahiki za kuanzia tarehe 25-02-2025 hadi mwezi wa 3 kulingana na siku ambazo utakuwa umeingia kazini.


nafikiri hapa ulikuwa unajaribu kusimulia kilichotokea,ila naomba kukuuliza si umesharudi kazi?na unalipwa stahiki zako kama kawaida? kama ndio basi hakuna haja ya kuchimbua mambo yaliyopita.

kama fidia haikuandikwa basi huwezi kudai au kulipwa chochote katika shauri hilo.

Nashukuru Kwa ufafanuzi mzuri,Kazini nilirudi na nalipwa Kama kawaida,Tatizo lililopo ni kwamba ukisimamishwa hata Kama huna kosa stahiki zako zote zinazuiliwa ikiwemo kupanda madaraja,Na kesi ikiisha kunakosekana maelezo kuhusu kutudishiwa madaraja hayo,Hivyo nilitaka kujua kwa swala Kama hilo utatuzi wake.unakuwaje?

 

[Smart911]

Ngoja tuone....


Cc: Mahondaw

 

[Prosperity96]

Nashukuru Kwa ufafanuzi mzuri,Kazini nilirudi na nalipwa Kama kawaida,Tatizo lililopo ni kwamba ukisimamishwa hata Kama huna kosa stahiki zako zote zinazuiliwa ikiwemo kupanda madaraja,Na kesi ikiisha kunakosekana maelezo kuhusu kutudishiwa madaraja hayo,Hivyo nilitaka kujua kwa swala Kama hilo utatuzi wake.unakuwaje?

kupanda madaraja hasa kwa watumishi wa umma naona iko na process kidogo na endapo kama ulisimamishwa kazi kwa sababu za kinidhamu hata kama ikaja kuonekana huna kosa huwa ni ngumu sana kupanda cheo kwa haraka,japo nafikiri kuna vitu vingi sana ambavyo hujaweka wazi nakushauri tafuta Wakili au Mwanasheria Mzuri wa Masuala ya Ajira aweze kukushauri katika hili,pia nafikiri uko katika Trauma flani hivi kufuatia yaliyotokea ,inawezekana ulikuwa una malengo ya kupandishwa daraja kazini lakini imeshindikana nakushauri utulie na ujipange kupambana kwa yaliyokuwa mbele yako,baadala ya kutafuta changamoto mpya.