Demande directe (CEACR) - adoptée 2006, publiée 96ème session CIT (2007)

Convention (n° 158) sur le licenciement, 1982 - Zambie (Ratification: 1990)

The Committee notes that the Government’s report has not been received. It hopes that a report will be supplied for examination by the Committee at its next session and that it will contain full information on the matters raised in its 1999 direct request, which read as follows:

Article 2, paragraph 3. In response to previous comments, the Government reports that there has been no change which would provide adequate safeguards against recourse to contracts of employment for a specified period of time for the purpose of avoiding the protections provided in the Convention. Please indicate the measures taken or envisaged to provide adequate safeguards.

Article 2, paragraphs 4 to 6. Further to its previous comments, the Committee notes the Government’s reply and requests a copy of Employment Act No. 9 of 1995.

Article 4. The Committee notes that some of the collective agreements forwarded with the Government’s report do not require a valid reason for termination of employment but only specify a minimum period of notice or other procedures for termination of employment. The Committee requests a copy of the amendments to the Employment Act, and would appreciate receiving further information on what provisions exist to ensure that for all workers included within the scope of the Convention their employment shall not be terminated unless there is a valid reason for such termination connected with the capacity or conduct of the worker or based on the operational requirements of the undertaking, establishment or service.

Article 5(d). In reply to previous comments, the Government states that no tripartite consensus has yet been reached on whether family responsibility shall not constitute a valid reason for termination of employment. section 108 of the Industrial and Labour Relations Act has been amended such that the prohibited grounds for dismissal now include “status of the employee” which could be interpreted to include family responsibility. However, no test case has yet gone before the tribunal. The Committee would appreciate being kept informed of the progress of the tripartite discussions and receiving a copy of any rulings on whether “status of the employee” in section 108 includes family responsibility.

Article 6, paragraph 1. The Committee notes that copies of the Minimum Wages and Conditions of Employment (General) (No. 2) Order, 1992, the Minimum Wages and Conditions of Employment (Shop Workers) Order, 1992, and the General Orders, requested in the previous comments, have not been sent. It asks the Government to forward such copies with its next report.

Article 12, paragraph 1(a). The Committee notes the information provided in response to its previous comments. It recalls that a worker whose employment has been terminated shall be entitled, in accordance with national law and practice, to (a) a severance allowance or other separation benefits conditional on length of service and the level of wages, or (b) unemployment benefits or assistance, or (c) a combination of both. Please clarify how this provision of the Convention is given effect in practice.

Article 7 and Article 14, paragraph 2. The Committee notes the Government’s statement that the Employment Act has been amended by Act No. 15 of 1997 to replace section 26 with sections 26A and 26B. The Government refers to these new sections in response to the points previously raised regarding these provisions of the Convention. The Committee defers further comments on these Articles until after it has had the opportunity to examine the amended Employment Act.