In the case of Veneranda Maro vs Arusha International Conference Center (Labour Revision No 167 of
2015, Civil Appeal No 322 of 2020) serves as a significant reference point for understanding the
principles surrounding fair termination of employment. In labor law, fairness in termination is assessed
through two main lenses: procedural fairness and substantive fairness. As in this case were by the
appellants, Veneranda Maro and Winfrida Ngasoma were both employed as medical personnel by the
respondent, the Arusha International Conference Center (the AICC). The first appellant was employed as
assistant nursing officer from 19/10/1983, whereas the second appellant was employed as a Medical
Officer grade II from 29/10/1991. They both happened to be members and leaders of the Tanzania
Nurses Association (TANNA) an association tasked with among others things, to act as an agent to
bargain for the rights of professional nurses. Acting in the capacity of TANNA, a complaint was lodged to
the respondent in respect of delayed promotions and salary increments of the members at the AICC.
In the ty his case the essential things to evaluate is whether the substantively and procedures were
followed by the Arusha International Conference Center adhered to the principal of fairness in
termination of employees to the course of employment and the Right to Representation: Employees
often have the right to be accompanied by a representative during disciplinary hearings. The court
considered if Ms. Maro was allowed this right during her proceedings. as regards The respondent
perceived this as gross insubordination which in terms of section 37 of the Employment and Labour
Relations Act CAP 366 R.E 2002 (the ELRA), was punishable by termination from the employment. As a
result, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the appellants as leaders of TANNA. Upon being
required to answer charges levelled against them, they declined to make any response on ground that,
they had authored the letter in question to the Permanent Secretary as leaders of TANNA and not in
their personal capacity as employees of the AICC. As such, the disciplinary proceedings were conducted
by the respondent in their absence, followed by termination from the employment.
Were by the ruling in this case highlighted critical aspects of employment law regarding fair
terminations. It underscored that both procedural integrity and substantive justification are essential
components in evaluating whether an employment termination is lawful or unjustified.as the High court
Judge held that "This is in our considered view, a matter worth consideration by the Executive and
legislators so as to prescribe limitations in order to set a clear guide to both the labour Court and
arbitrators on what constitutes an equitable and just compensation in case substantive and
procedural unfairness.In view of what we have endeavoured to discuss, as earlier intimated, the
learned High Court Judge properly exercised his discretion having ordered lesser compensation than
what was awarded by the CMA. We thus uphold the verdict of the High Court that the respondent be
paid ,compensation for forty-eight (48) months' remuneration for the substantively unfair
termination. We find the appeal not merited and it is hereby dismissed." This clearly show that when
the case decided ce Court consider both procedurally and substantively reasons for employees
termination so as to determine justice between the parties
