Wed, 05 Jul 2017 14:41:47 +0000
By ROGERS KALERO
THE Ndola High Court has thrown out an application by Kansanshi Mining PLC for interlocutory injunction order to restrain the Mineworkers Union of Zambia (MUZ) from interfering or frustrating the implementation of the Collective Agreement for the period 2017-2019 on the payment of agreed New Bonus until the final determination of the matter.
Judge Derrick Mulenga declined to grant the Application for an Interlocutory Injunction whose Interim Injunction was granted on 13th February, 2017.
In throwing out the injunction, Judge Mulenga said he had not found that if no Interlocutory Injunction was granted, the Complainant (Kansanshi Mining PLC) would suffer irreparable damage or injury that cannot be atoned for by damages.
Judge Mulenga further said, an injunction against the respondent (MUZ) would result in denial of its rights to engage the Minister of Labour and Social Services and or the Labour Commissioner.
“The position of the respondent who did not accede to the New Bonus Scheme formulated by the applicant, is different from that of the disjoined parties.
“I therefore, declined to grant the application for an Interlocutory Injunction on the interim Injunction which was granted on 13th February, 2017,” Judge Mulenga said.
Judge Mulenga further said that there was no doubt that the principles governing the granting of the application for an interlocutory injunction are well settled as cited by the Learned Counsel.
However, the issue of herein is to be found in the tenor or the wording of the Addendum to the collective agreement between the Applicant and the disjoined parties (National Union of Miners and Allied Workers (NUMAW) and United Mine workers Union of Zambia (UMUZ).
He said the Addendum to the collective Agreement for Kansanshi PLC , for the period 1st January 2017 to 31st December 2019 , only binds the applicant herein and the members of NUMAW and UMUZ (the disjoined parties), because by virtue of their signing of the Addendum, they are in agreement to the terms and conditions, therein.
“On the other hand, the respondent herein is said to have expressly removed itself, meaning that its members are not party to the Addendum in issue, however, that does not mean that MUZ members are not party to the collective agreement of 2017 to 2019.
“The question, therefore, that arises is “What is it, that the Applicant wishes to injunct the Respondent from doing,” he said.
