T HE EM PLO Y M ENT HIVE

SEPTEMBER 2 0 , 2 0 1 8

Tanzania: common mistakes that may affect your employment case

Written by Aliko Simon, Margareth Maganga and Peter Kasanda

This month’s employment briefing highlights ten procedural steps that often get
overlooked by employers, which ultimately may jeopardise the entire case.

According to section 37(2) of the Employment and Labour Relations Act, 2004 (the "ELRA"), a termination of
employment by an employer is deemed unfair if the employer is unable to prove that:

1 the reason for the termination is valid;

2 the reason is a fair reason; and

3 the employment was terminated in accordance with a fair procedure.

In our experience at the Commission for Mediation and Arbitration ("CMA"), it is a far greater challenge to
prove that fair procedure was adhered to than to prove the fairness and validity of a reason for termination
of an employment contract. This is due to a lack of codification, and the technical nature of some of the
procedure.

1 Failure to issue a show cause letter to an employee prior to taking disciplinary action. A show
cause letter is issued to an employee who is alleged to have committed a misconduct. It details the
incident and requires the employee to explain the reason(s) a disciplinary action should not be
taken against him/her. This is not prescribed in the law, however an omission of this step may be
considered by the CMA as a breach of rules of natural justice i.e. allowing the employee to defend
themselves.

2 Failure to issue a notice of disciplinary hearing or issuing a notice of less than 48 hours. Rule
13(3) of the Employment and Labour Relations (Code of Good Practice) Rules (the "Code") requires
an employer to issue an employee with reasonable notice of an intended hearing to allow him/her
to prepare for the hearing. The Code requires such notice to be of not less than 48 hours.

3 Failure to include the allegations or charges facing the employee in the notice of a
disciplinary hearing. The ELRA and the Code do not expressly require the employer to notify the
employee of the allegations that the latter will be faced with. However in practice, the CMA and/or
the court may decide that the hearing was unfair where the employee was not informed of the
allegations facing them ahead of the disciplinary hearing.

4 Failure to include in the notice of disciplinary hearing information that the employee is
entitled to be accompanied by a representative at the disciplinary hearing. Rule 13(3) of the
Code provides that the employee shall be entitled to be assisted in the hearing by a trade union
representative or a fellow employee. Failure to inform the employee of their right of representation
ahead of the hearing could be ruled by the CMA and/or the court to be unfair.

5 Introducing new charges against the employee during the hearing which are different from
the charges in the notice of the disciplinary hearing. The CMA and/or the court may rule that the
employee was not availed sufficient notice to prepare where new charges are introduced at the
hearing. In such circumstances the termination may be deemed unfair.

6 A disciplinary committee being composed of only one individual. Both the ELRA and the Code
require an employer to constitute a disciplinary committee to hear the case. Although the ELRA and
the Code do not prescribe a number of individuals that can constitute a disciplinary committee, an
employer may be challenged if the “committee” constituted of only one individual.

7 A person who was involved in the allegations that resulted in a disciplinary action (including
investigation) participating as a member of the disciplinary committee. This could bring the
impartiality of the disciplinary committee into question and the CMA and/or the court may rule that
the hearing was procedurally unfair.

8 Failure to call witnesses at the hearing for cross-examination by the employee. Rule 13(5) of
the Code provides that the employee shall be given a proper opportunity at the hearing to question
any witness called by the employer, and to call witnesses if necessary. Not availing an employee with
an opportunity to cross-examine/question the employer’s witness(es) could be deemed unfair. This
omission is common where the employer is relying on written statements of the witness.

9 The disciplinary committee recommending a penalty prior to allowing the employee to put
forward his/her mitigation/representation regarding an appropriate penalty. According to the
Guideline for Disciplinary, Incapacity and Incompatibility Policy and Procedures (the "Guidelines"), a
penalty should be imposed after the employee has presented his/her case. Failure to comply with
this requirement may be considered an unfair termination.

10 Failure to inform the employee of their right to appeal to a senior manager. The disciplinary
 committee must inform an employee of their right to appeal. Failure to inform the employee of this
right could be considered by the CMA and/or the court to be unfair.

The list set out above is not exhaustive and the CMA may formulate other reasons to determine fairness.

Please note that an arbitrator or a judge may rule that the termination of an employment contract was
procedurally unfair if any of the points set out above were not complied with. Irrespective of the extent of
the deviation, upon the arbitrator/judge making a finding that the termination was unfair, the arbitrator
may order an employer to:

1 reinstate the employee from the date the employee was terminated without loss of remuneration
during the period that the employee was absent from work due to the unfair termination; or

2 re-engage the employee on any terms that the arbitrator or court may decide; or

3 pay compensation to the employee of not less than twelve months' remuneration.

We therefore urge employers to be very diligent when conducting disciplinary hearings in order to avoid the
pitfalls stated above.

We hope that this update has been useful. Should you require further information, please do not hesitate
to contact us.

 Authors

Aliko Simon
Senior Associate

Margareth Maganga
Associate

Peter Kasanda
Partner

 More by the authors

Tanzania: handling misconduct of a criminal nature at the work place 

The UK’s Modern Slavery Act and Supply Chain Transparency: A Focus on Tanzania 
 Tanzania - Workers compensation scheme 

 Categories

Dismissals, redundancy, discipline & grievances Protecting business interests Legal developments

© Clyde & Co 2020. All rights reserved.