Ay 2 Sakasi oabrvmnnken ety % rea 4 padiged bs Aardl teh CECB este aggorcns a | neal val saith a owe: nth agplcenble He Prinnony ome IN THE HIGH court OF TANZANE “Pabdins IAN LABOUR DIVISION AT MWANZA f REVISION NO 40 OF 2012 PPLICANT s we Tanzanian Law, an employee on probation automatically assumes vere Ihe stipulated period of probation has expired, without the employer Jomo 0 conf o not eat the employee, H:cF oF pot an employs, whose employment is terminated alter expiry of the probation 11 before coniiamation, is entitled to protection under the unfair fermination provisions- ‘57 of the.Employment and Labour Relations Act, 6/2004 (ELRA), bois res ‘ure that the Commission for Mediation and Arbitration (CMA) record of is Ginely submitted to this Court for purpose of revision, Is it the applicant?The three questions arise in the following Context: The applicantfoank employed the respondent on 4/2/ 2010, on a six months probation period. The respondent was terminated ‘on 22/12/2014 on ground of misconduct namely; “poor performance’. Termination was after . months probation period had long expired, but before the respondent's employment had been confirmed. The respondent appealed the termination decision to the Commnission for Mediation and Arbitration (CMA) where he filed 4 olgntgir temgjnation XN s famed in whether termination was for a valid reason; ~~ vinether it was conducted in accordance was re and las; «Relief parties’ were entitled to. S OMA, the a, ae that; the respondent's probation period mrt apived on 8/8/2010 but his . ce was unsatisfactory, that was why he was not rOBation period was extended on 16/5/2011. The applicant and sought the remedy of reinstatement. Issues framed were like sicpy'os of unfair termination, namely; confirmed instead, his 8 isp te further testifigd that. thé.respdydent was given a warning more than once, and on one of times, heWias gF < ing warning. They. testified further that, after the respondent «to GR petignt ala 41 and terminated on 22/12/2011. bance evaluation form; was thereafter summoned to a disciplinary Basically, the respondent admitted not to have been confirmed when he testified that he made several requests for confirmation without success. He also admitted to have been given warning including strong warning after it was discovered that he had failed to mention former employees including the Stanbic Bank; and to have refused to sign assessment (2)fora for period 20/6/2011 to 7/12/201 1, which led to being called at disciplinary meeting on 20122014 and termination 2 days after. The CMA decision was in brief that: a) since the employee had worked for more than. fore termination, the argument that respondent was fot terminated because he year 6 Wes stil on probation is baseless b) The employer had ao a work Performance because there was no Proof of breached ‘performdflee Sandan required under Section 39 of the ELRA read together with Rules 93} 170) Nye Employment and labour Relations (Code of Good Practice) Rules, GN 4 re employer failed to 1) of GI Consider employee's reasons for non performance as 42/2007. d) It was 'Mproper for the applicant to terminate the respondéAit for Tog- sformance without having warned him more than once, for that wate improper for the employer to terminate the employeelrespondent, ile he wa er afforded training Opportunity to wmprove portorr ©. f) The CMA con leg dhat due to all the above reasons, the 9S untaie lerminaledand deserved Compensation in the sum equal to 12 Abie "64. vaffol.considering the applicants evidence and nature of the applicants in law and in fact in holding that the Tespondent was unfairly 4 Aagrieteg its, Neal 500ks revision of the above decision ©n grounds, in brief q ale err < shat the ruling/Award was based on different issues which were not framed by the parties. Last, that the Arbitrator failed to properly assess the evidence on record and henceforth reached a wrong decision, (3)