Labour Act review and stakeholders’ interests

13 Apr, 2014 - 00:04 0 Views
Labour Act review and  stakeholders’ interests

The Sunday News

Bus2Paul Innocent Karanda  Economic Focus
THE Labour Relations Act has been used as an instrument to govern labour practices in Zimbabwe and has served different groups and probably interests at different times. The recent debate on the review of labour law is reflecting in some way the need to attain the Zim Asset goals and is expected to create an enabling environment in industry.

Employers have welcomed the review opportunity and unions had long awaited the opportunity to present their views on the shortcomings of the existing Act and their expectations.

Given the critical nature of this piece of law, the assumed opportunity will be taken by stakeholders to ensure that their interests are covered and adequately provided for.

This, however, is almost impossible given the diverse interest that the stakeholders have and the position seemingly being taken by the Government.

Labour law in Zimbabwe has come a long way and the provision of legislation dates back to 1901.  In 1934 the Industrial Conciliation Act was promulgated.

This piece of legislation excluded blacks and most of its terms protected the white employees’ interests.

It would be important to note that this piece of law has always primarily addressed the employer-employee relationship.
In 1959 the Industrial Conciliation Act made some tremendous strides in recognising the rights of all workers, blacks and whites.

In 1980 two pieces of legislation came into being, the Minimum Wages Act and the Employment Act. These dealt with the general terms of employment and set out conditions regarding contracts of employment with the later stipulating minimum wages for different categories of employment.

In 1985 the Labour Relations Act was promulgated and it was subsequently amended in 1992, 2002 & 2005. The post independence laws addressed the colonial imbalances that were inherent in the laws.

Besides catering for specific interest groups, labour laws are also generally inspired by mother bodies such as the International Labour Organisation, the Constitution and others.

These provide the framework and guidelines for dealing with specific labour issues. The Zimbabwe situation is one that has evolved over time and reviews to the labour laws are most likely to maintain the core in terms of framework and various provisions and specifics that is perceived by stakeholders to have failed to strike the expected balance.

Unions have distributed brochures and have been campaigning for labour law reforms – the Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions (ZCTU) to be specific.

Having identified the labour laws’ shortcomings from their end they made their demands clear as they put them.

These fall into about 36 categories and include among others the right to strike after giving 48 hours notice, the right to strike over non-payment of wages and benefits, a working week of not more than 40 hours, implementation of short time only after an agreement has been signed at Works Council, increase of special leave days from 12 to 30 working days among other requests. These are concerns that the employees’ side would want addressed and they may all need to be debated with a view to ensuring that all stakeholders’ concerns are met.

The arguments for and against cannot be exhausted but the fundamental issues remain matters for debate.

One area where all the parties will need to engage would be the administration of the labour processes as provided for under Section 92 e on appeals to the Labour Court which is at variance with common law provisions where an appeal has the effect of setting aside earlier determinations or rulings.

The Labour Court proceedings as provided for under Section 92 e paragraph 2 clearly state that an appeal in terms of subsection (1) shall not have the effect of suspending the determination or decision appealed against.

Though paragraph 3 states that pending the determination of an appeal, the Labour Court may take such interim determination in the matter as the justice of the case requires.

This in light of claims for some outrageous awards against both parties does not create an environment conducive for the promotion of industrial harmony.

It has been argued that the Act had made significant progress in advancing and providing for employees and a lot still needs to be done.
Arguments have been made on the quality of leadership and management with regards to salaries making products costly and uncompetitive.

It has also been argued that the laying off of employees is almost impossible resulting in companies maintaining unsustainable wage bills that escort companies to the grave yards via the judicial manager in some instances when better provisions could have been made depending on which side one is coming from.

It is argued that interventions could have been made to reduce the workforce and re-engaging them having saved the companies in the first place.

As presented earlier the core purpose of the Act is likely to be maintained but provisions may need to be debated to serve the obtaining situation better.

Areas that seem to require attention among others would be the retrenchment provisions where all stakeholders agree that there are no minimum provisions for a retrenchment package.

The current review is no secret, motivated by the need to at least retain investment and at most attract new investors.

The labour laws must be seen by investors or would-be investors to be promoting investment but not necessarily doing away with the fundamentals already achieved in the years of progress in labour law. Such could be illustrated for example under Section 12 on Duration, particulars and termination of an employment contract that provides for three months notice. The fundamental of notice provision is not the problem, the 90 days or three months notice is. Besides the impractical reality that all parties have had to deal with, the three months notice also has an effect on retrenchment packages. Standard practice in most countries is one month notice.

Other provisions that different groups may need to debate would include the 25 percent maximum deduction on salary under Section 12 (a) the Leave provisions especially Special Leave in paragraph (f) of Section 14(b) where any justifiable compassionate ground would serve as provision for special leave.

Sick leave provisions under Section 14 where section 4 paragraph (a) provides for 90 days sick leave on full pay. Sick leave in South Africa is six weeks paid leave within a 36 months cycle period with the same employer.

The Act and the mechanism of review should allow for debate by stakeholders despite differences in the ends that they seek they should serve the stakeholders. The nation should also benefit from the establishment of an Act that strikes a balance across all groups.

Paul Innocent Karanda is a Human resources practitioner. He writes in his own capacity. You can get in touch with him at [email protected]

Share This:

Survey


We value your opinion! Take a moment to complete our survey

This will close in 20 seconds