Labour Commission summons Lake Harvest

THE Ministry of Labour and Social Security has summoned Lake Harvest Commercial Limited after the company terminated contracts of its employees but refused to give them separation benefits.

Affected former workers have dismissed the claim that this was the company’s policy.

But Lake Harvest human resource manager only identified as Liya denied having been summoned by the ministry before cutting the phone.

This is the matter in which Mukuka Mutale, one of the employees, whose contract was terminated without being given her dues, has reported the company to the government.

According to a letter dated January 2, 2020, assistant labour commissioner Yvonne Simwinga has summoned the human resource manager to appear on Wednesday, January 15, 2020 with all the documents that will help settle the matter.

“The above person (Mukuka Mutale) who says was employed by you has complained that you have not settled her separation dues.

“As per mandate and powers provided for in Section 121(1) of the Employment Code Act No. 3 of 2019 of the Laws of Zambia, we request that you come to the department of Labour situated at the Lusaka Boma next to the Local Courts,” the letter read in part.

“See the undersigned on 15/01/2020 at 10:00 for the purpose of expedient settlement of the matter.

Please, come with necessary documents that will settle the matter before the provisions of Sections 121(1)(b) of the Employment Code Act No. 3 of 2019 of the Laws of Zambia are enforced.”

But when contacted for clarity over her pending summons to the ministry over the matter, Ms Liya expressed ignorance. “No, [that she is not aware that the company has been summoned],” Ms Liya said before cutting the call.

When a copy of the letter from the Ministry of Labour and Social Security was sent to her via WhatsApp to confirm if she had not received it, Ms Liya ignored it despite reading it.

Sources within Lake Harvest told the Daily Nation the company had terminated contracts for a number of employees who had not been given their separation benefits.

The reason the company has allegedly given is that its policy gave no entitlement to employees who left despite the number of years they could have served.