The Industrial Relations Court (IRC) has ordered Eastern Produce Limited to pay two former security guards for two unpaid hours deducted from every 12-hour shift after finding the company wrongly treated the time as unpaid rest breaks.

The order follows the court’s findings in a case brought by former employees, Gerald Muluvala and Peterson Komakoma, employed by the company at Minimini Tea Estate, in which the company failed to prove that the deducted hours were genuine off-duty periods.

In a judgment delivered last week, IRC Deputy Chairperson Wyson Chamdimba Nkhata held that Muluvala and Komakoma were entitled to payment for the disputed hours after successfully arguing that they remained responsible for security duties throughout their shifts despite being paid for only 10 hours.

The court ordered that the amount owed to Muluvala and Komakoma be assessed by the court registrar unless the parties agree on the figures.

It also directed Eastern Produce Limited to produce employment contracts, duty rosters, pays lips, attendance, and wage records to facilitate the assessment.

The dispute arose after the two security guards claimed they routinely worked 12-hour shifts but were paid for only 10 hours because the company deducted two hours for meals and tea breaks.

They argued they remained on duty throughout the shifts and could not leave their posts, making the deductions unlawful.

Eastern Produce, however, opposed the claim, arguing that security guards worked 10 payable hours within each 12-hour shift, while the remaining two hours were designated meal and tea breaks under company policy and industry practice.

The company maintained that the breaks were not working time and therefore did not attract payment.

In his judgment, Nkhata found that although company documents established a policy providing for unpaid meal and tea breaks, they did not demonstrate that guards were actually relieved from duty during those periods.

The court noted evidence showing that some security posts were manned by a single guard without relief, meaning guards either remained responsible for the premises while eating or left posts unattended.

It concluded that the employer had failed to establish a practical relief system that allowed guards to be genuinely off-duty.

The judgment also referred to the applicants’ dismissal after they were found sleeping while guarding a transformer, saying the incident exposed contradictions in the company’s position.

While the court did not determine whether the dismissal itself was fair, it found the employer could not treat the two hours as unpaid off-duty time while simultaneously disciplining guards for failing to remain vigilant during the same period.

“The Respondent failed to rebut the Applicants’ evidence that the two hours deducted from each twelve-hour shift were, in practice, working time,” Nkhata ruled.

The case could have wider implications for the security guards working extended shifts, particularly where employers classify meal and rest periods as unpaid without providing relief staff to take over security duties.