IN THE DISPUTE BETWEEN:

FRANCIS CHAWANDA APPLICANT

-AND-

ILLOVO SUGAR MALAWI RESPONDENT

BACKGROUND

1. Francis Chawanda (the Applicant) was employed by Illovo for 22 years since 2nd January
2002. He worked as a foreman of 3 sections;
1.1. Plumbing
1.2. Refrigeration
1.3. Electrical
2. Installation of a genset took place at Pump Station 470 on 10th March 2023. The work was
done by the electrical chargehand and heavy plant mechanics.
3. Meanwhile, the applicant assisted plumbers who were simultaneously working to fix
burst pipes, continuing into the following day, 11th March 2023.
4. The heavy plant mechanics also returned the following day (11th March 2023) to induct
operators on how to run the genset. The plant was tested and running.
5. The Applicant’s supervisor, Frank Khoka, was supposed to inspect the installation to
ensure everything was done according to procedure. Mr Khoka refused.
6. The plant continued running for three weeks.
7. On 2nd April 2023, the Applicant was off duty and away from the Estate. On this day:
7.1. Plumbers attended to reports of a leak.
7.2. In order to find where the leak was, the plumbers went to Pump Station 470 and
asked the operator to run the genset.
7.3. Although he had been trained on how to run the genset, the operator forgot to isolate
the main isolator. The operator was also unaware that linesmen were working on the
transmission line.
7.4. The employees working on the day did not put earth tubes on both ends
7.5. One of the linesmen was electrocuted, while another suffered an injury to his hand.
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS

8. On 5th May 2023 Mr Chawanda received a complaint form filed against him by his
supervisor, Mr Khoka.The charge was Gross Negligence. The complaint alleged failure to
supervise proper installation of the genset at a Pump Station 470.
9. The initial disciplinary hearing was held 11th May 2023. The Applicant was found guilty.
10. On 16th May 2023, the Applicant appealed the finding of Gross Negligence. He argued
that:
10.1 The charge of Gross Negligence was excessive compared to the original
charge of Negligence. His supervisor also refused to carry out his duty to inspect
the installation.
10.2 The operator was instructed on how to run the genset and signed off
acknowledging that he understood, yet he failed to follow procedure.
10.3 The generator ran for 3 weeks without problems. The same operators,
following the same procedure.
10.4 The incident was an operation issue, not an installation issue.
10.5 A procedural irregularity seriously harmed his case. That is, the complainant
had originally charged the Applicant with negligence. A week later he upgraded
the charge to gross negligence, showing that he had been influenced by others.
11. The second hearing was held on 2nd June 2023. The Applicant was found guilty of Gross
Negligence.
12. On 5th June 2023 the Applicant received a termination of service letter.