Does fighting at work constitute an act misconduct in Zimbabwe?

The Labour Act [Chapter 28:10] which regulates employment and labour issues in Zimbabwe was designed to ensure that the health and safety of employees at the work place is respected. It is not uncommon that a physical altercation in the workplace can arise. However, fighting or attempting to injure or intimidate another employee at work has serious consequences.

In general, fighting is an actual exchange of blows between two or more persons, or use of damaging objects, usually following a challenge by one to the other or a physical combat with another person who retaliates and may include use of weapons.

Fighting at work or attempting to injure or intimidate another employee at the workplace in Zimbabwe is unacceptable. It is a breach of the employee’s contractual obligations. An employee is contracted to work and is not engaged to fight, intimidate or injure other employees. Fighting affects the smooth running of operations and may result in injury to customers, other employees and property.

The South African Labour Appeal Court in Nelson Mandela Bay Metropolitan Municipality v Independent Municipal & Allied Trade Union (IMATU) obo Johannes Tshabalala & Others [2019] 3 BLLR 239 (LAC); (2019) 40 ILJ 1021 (LAC) held that:

“The misconduct committed by the employee was sufficiently serious to warrant a sanction of dismissal regardless of his length of service and clean disciplinary record”.

It must be highlighted that employees who are involved in fighting in Zimbabwe could face a wide range of disciplinary actions, including warnings, suspensions, or even termination. Not all employees want to fight and others act in self-defence as they find themselves in a threating situation. The concept of provocation indicates a situation in which the provoker elicits anger or wrath of the provoked by means of a challenging or defiant behaviour, and the latter in reaction to the provocative behaviour, commits a misconduct i.e., fight. In this regard, an employee who alleges that he or she was provoked and acted in self -defence and relies on the defence of self-defence may be exonerated if their reaction was reasonable, immediate and proportionate to the provocation itself. see Tedco Plastics (Pty) Ltd v National Union of Metalworkers of SA & Others (2000) 21 ILJ 2710 (LC).