Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 2005, Publication: 93rd ILC session (2005)

Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98) - Zimbabwe (Ratification: 1998)

The Government communicated the following written information:

1.1. The Government of Zimbabwe confirms that it commenced a review of its labour legislation and that the Bill has since been approved by Cabinet and published as H.B. 1/2005. It will be tabled for debate before Parliament, during the 1st Session of the 6th Parliament of Zimbabwe, which resumes in June 2005.

1.2. The Government confirms further that all legislative amendments it undertook to include at the 92nd Session of the Conference have been incorporated into the Bill. These in particular are:

(i) Repeal of section 22 of the Labour Act, Chapter 28.01, which permitted the fixing of maximum wages by the Minister or at all.

(ii) The repeal of sections 25(2)(b), 79(2)(b) and 81(1)(b) of the Labour Act, Chapter 28.01, which permitted the authorities not to register collective bargaining agreements which were deemed not to be equitable to consumers and the public generally.

1.3. The Government confirms that it is up to date with all correspondence relating to the reports by the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions.

2. The Government notes that the Committee of Experts also suggests that sections 25(2)(c), 79(2)(c) and 81(1)(c) of the Labour Act, Chapter 28.01, which permits the authorities not to register a collective bargaining agreement "which has become unreasonable or unfair having regard to the respective rights of the parties ...", be repealed for want of compliance with Convention No. 98.

It is noted that the Convention specifically recognizes two grounds by the authorities for declining to register collective bargaining agreements, viz.:

(i) a procedural flaw in the collective bargaining agreement; or

(ii) inconsistency with general labour legislation minimum standards.

Stricto senso there may be no room for declining to register on grounds of unfairness or reasonableness with respect to the rights of the parties.

The Convention being supreme and binding, Zimbabwe has no hesitation in amending its laws accordingly so as to be in keeping with the wording of the Convention.

3. The Government also notes that the Committee of Experts is not comfortable with section 25(1) of the Labour Act, which generally provides that an agreement reached by more than 50 per cent of the employees at a workplace is binding regardless of the position of the other unionized employees.

It is felt that this section does not recognize the provisions of Article 4 of the Convention which requires "measures ... to encourage and promote the full development and utilization of machinery for voluntary negotiations between employers or employers' organizations and workers' organizations ...".

Section 25(1) of the Labour Act ensures majority rule at the workplace. It is a cornerstone of democracy in all practice that the voice of the majority prevails. The proposal by the Committee of Experts implies that the concept of majority rule does not apply in collective bargaining. The Government is of the strong view that section 25(1) is consistent with universal democratic practice, which Convention No. 98 recognizes.

In the circumstances, Zimbabwe stands further guided by the Committee of Experts on the point in the light of this explanation.

4. Finally, the Government appreciates the Committee of Experts' observation that the issue of prison staff is a constitutional question as explained by the Government at the 92nd Session of the Conference.

5. The Government observes with deep concern that, notwithstanding substantial compliance with Convention No. 98, it continues to be listed with respect to the same Convention. It has appeared before this Committee consecutively since 2002 in circumstances which do not meet the selection criteria for listing Members before this Committee.

At all previous Zimbabwe appearances, discussions have degenerated into political discourse. Convention No. 98 is used as a smokescreen to demonize Zimbabwe because of the unpopularity of Zimbabwe's domestic policies in the circles of some former colonial powers.

6. Zimbabwe also does not lose sight of the Nicodemus circum-stances under which it was eventually listed through the agency of errant and dubious unionists at this 93rd Session and warns the ILO against the inevitable impairment of its credibility as a transparent and objective international organization.

In view of the foregoing and given the known selection criteria for listing Members, Zimbabwe urges Officers of the Committee to objectively consider its case.

In addition, before the Committee, a Government representative stated that his Government had prepared and made available its response to the observations of the Committee of Experts. He reiterated that Zimbabwe had fully undertaken the process of implementation of all commitments it had made at the previous session of the Conference Committee. It had tabled a Bill amending the Labour Relations Act with a view to repealing sections 22, 25(2)(b), 79(2)(b) and 81(1)(b). This Bill was due for debate in Parliament this June. All social partners had participated in drafting the Bill and the draft was made public. Furthermore, to implement the observations of the Committee of Experts, the Government had now agreed to repeal sections 25(2)(c), 79(2)(c) and 81(1)(c) of the Labour Relations Act, which subjected collective agreements to ministerial approval on the grounds that the agreement was deemed unreasonable or unfair with regard to the rights of the parties. As the Bill was still before Parliament, it was not too late to include these amendments.

With regard to section 25(1) of the Labour Relations Act, which provided for the binding nature of collective agreements approved by more than 50 per cent of employees at a workplace regardless of the views of a unionized minority, and with regard to the statement made by the Government last year before the Conference Committee to the effect that employment council codes took precedence over workers' council codes and hence gave precedence to unionized agreements, the Committee of Experts had correctly pointed out that codes of conduct did not regulate all issues covered by collective agreements. Although his Government questioned whether by disregarding the views of the majority at the workplace, shop-floor democracy was not discarded, it nevertheless would abide by the decision of the Committee of Experts.

With regard to the request of the Committee of Experts to reply to the ICFTU comments, the Government representative indicated that his Government did not deal directly with the ICFTU as the latter was not an ILO body. As for the specific alleged violations of the freedom of association brought by individuals or the ICFTU, the Government had provided its response. These matters were for the Committee on Freedom of Association to examine and not the Conference Committee.

On the issue of prison staff, the speaker explained that any guarantee of the exercise of the rights afforded by the Convention was premised upon the prison service being deemed not to be a military force under the Constitution. But until the Constitution was amended, this situation would remain unchanged. Social partners were very aware of this fact.

The Government representative expressed his bewilderment at the fact that Zimbabwe had to appear before the Conference Committee for the fourth time as the questions at issue were of a legislative nature and mostly related to the interpretation of several provisions, and no problems with the practical application of the Convention were raised. There were no discernible criteria to justify the discussions of Zimbabwe before the Conference Committee for over four years. In his Government's opinion, his country was called before the Conference Committee at the demand of some former colonial powers who were openly agitating for regime change in the country following a successful land reform programme. But there could be other appropriate forums to talk of other concerns, which were not covered by Convention No. 98. The Conference Committee should focus on the issues raised by the Committee of Experts. His Government once again called for a review of the working methods of the Conference Committee.

The Employer members thanked the Government for the information provided and assured the Government that the case had not been selected on the basis of any political consideration. This was rather a case involving tangible progress, which was one of the criteria for selection provided for under the Committee's methods of work. Zimbabwe had recently ratified the Convention and the Committee of Experts had already noted some legislative reforms with satisfaction. Nevertheless, some problems remained. Sections 25, 79 and 81 of the Labour Code needed to be amended and, according to the Government, such amendments were under way. While the Bill concerned was already finalized, there was still time to include amendments to common subsection (c) of these sections, as requested by the Committee of Experts. The requirement to submit collective bargaining agreements to the Ministry for approval was an interference with the ability of workers and employers to determine the conditions of employment independently from the Government. The Government did not provide information on section 22 which constituted a serious constraint on the subject matter and scope of collective bargaining and, therefore, needed to be removed. Regarding section 25(1), the Government should clarify whether a union was required to cover a certain percentage of the employees in order to be able to bargain collectively. In conclusion, the Government had already addressed a number of problems, but it was crucial that the remaining points would be properly addressed. The Government should supply a comprehensive report to the Committee of Experts on all the outstanding issues and should take advantage of technical assistance provided by the ILO in order to remove all legislative provisions that interfered with collective bargaining in accordance with the Convention.

The Worker members noted that the application of the Convention in Zimbabwe had been under discussion by the Conference Committee, the Committee on Freedom of Association and the Committee of Experts for several years. In 2003, the Conference had asked the Government to accept a direct contacts mission and to inform the Committee of Experts. In 2004, the Conference had revealed that the Government had not accepted this direct contacts mission, invoking the fact that such a move could not be undertaken for strictly legal reasons, while in its 2003 conclusions the Conference had referred to violations of the Convention in practice and in law. The Worker members considered that the attitude of the Government demonstrated clearly that it did not wish to give up interfering with collective negotiations, and that it sought to retain the possibility of signing direct agreements with workers, even where unions existed. The Government had declared that it had decided to repeal the ministerial approval as a prerequisite to collective agreements and the setting of minimum wages. In doing so, it nevertheless revealed that this reform had been decided by itself alone, without discussion between the social partners and that in addition it reserved the right to put the matter before Parliament. But, in a truly democratic state, aware of its credibility, a draft law had to be submitted to Parliament and run the risk of being opposed. The Government had not taken the opportunity offered to it to take up social dialogue again. At present, it was happy to repeat its promises of 2003 and 2004, without even mentioning a timetable for these reforms. The Government admitted that the Convention took priority over domestic law and announced that it would modify sections 25(2)(b), 79(2)(b) and 81(1)(b) of the Labour Relations Act, without any concrete measure actually backing up these declarations, and it had still not modified section 22 of the Labour Relations Act in order to ensure that a trade union could undertake collective bargaining, even if it represented less than 50 per cent of wage earners. For the Worker members such an obstacle clearly showed the Government's intention of continuing to exercise control over collective bargaining and, more generally, to deny the fundamental principles of freedom of association.

A Worker member of Zimbabwe stated that it was sad to note that the Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions (ZCTU) had come back with the same concerns that it had raised at last year's session of the Committee. The Government's continued anti-trade union attitude was evident in the fact that provisions of the Labour Relations Act requiring collective bargaining agreements to be submitted for ministerial approval and to be published as statutory instruments in order for them to be in force, as well as provisions fixing maximum wages were still in force. The Government had stated in 2004 that it would address these issues by reforming legislation in consultation with the social partners. In fact, the Government had published Labour Act Amendment Bill H.B. 1 of 2005 without consulting the social partners on its substance. The Bill did not address some of the abovementioned issues of concern to the ZCTU, nor did it address the use of the Public Order and Security Act (POSA) by police and security agencies to arrest trade unionists because of their trade union activities. Furthermore, public service employees were removed from the ambit of the Labour Relations Act and were placed under the scope of the Public Service Act, which did not allow public service employees to join trade unions or to collectively bargain. At the last session of the Committee, the ZCTU had also raised the issue of prison service employees, who did not enjoy the right to collective bargaining. The Government had indicated that it would rectify this through a constitutional amendment, yet the amendment pending before the current Parliament did not address this concern. Tripartism was not implemented seriously in the country. While the Government had asked the social partners for submissions on the amendment of the Labour Relations Act, the submissions of the workers had just been shelved. The tripartite system lacked a governing statute and relied on the will of the Government to be convened. The speaker concluded by pointing to further problems in the application of the Convention. He noted that a tripartite event to mark the World Health and Safety Day, attended by government officials, employers, ILO representatives and national social security authority officials, had been disrupted by the police, who had arrested only ZCTU members. Furthermore, the POSA had been used to attack the informal economy, which had been developed by trade unions as a poverty-reduction strategy. The POSA and the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act (No. 5 of 2002) were also used to attack trade unions. He urged the Government to commit itself to respecting the Convention.

Another Worker member of Zimbabwe stated that he was the Third Vice-President of the Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions (ZCTU). He could confirm that the Government had tabled the Labour Act Amendment Bill H.B. 1 which addressed the concerns raised during last year's session of this Committee. In this regard, he found the listing of Zimbabwe in the individual cases before this Committee counterproductive. He wished to state for the record that the case had not been put on the list by the ZCTU or any regional trade union association, but rather by persons with ulterior political motives. It was not appropriate for this Committee to address political developments in Zimbabwe, as this was better left for the persons directly involved. He stated that the ZCTU was pleased with the legislative progress that had been made in this case, and felt that these developments should be applauded. He was of the view that this forum was not the place to address internal disputes within the ZCTU or to resolve issues of persons who had fallen out of favour with the ZCTU.

The Employer member of Zimbabwe recalled that last year the employers had urged the Committee to give the Government time to address the issues that had been raised. He wished to report, from the employers' perspective, on the progress that had been made over the past 12 months. The speaker noted with satisfaction the positive tenor of the Committee of Experts' report and expressed surprise that the Conference Committee had included Zimbabwe again in the list of individual cases. He recalled the steps that had been taken previously to promote the concept of social dialogue by ensuring maximum participation by employers in the process of law reform and acknowledged the assistance Zimbabwe had received from the ILO through the ILO/SWISS Project, which continued to bring the social partners together in spite of the differences that existed. The employers' efforts undertaken on the bipartite and tripartite level had contributed to the publication by the Government, in January 2005, of the Labour Act Amendment Bill H.B. 1 of 2005, which sought to address most of the points raised by this Committee in 2004. The Bill proposed to repeal section 22 of the Labour Relations Act, which permitted the fixing of maximum wages by the minister, as well as sections 25(2)(b), 79(2)(b) and 81(l)(b), which permitted the authorities not to register collective agreements which were deemed not to be equitable to consumers and the public generally. These provisions of the Bill seemed to respond to the Committee of Experts' concerns with a view to ensuring compliance with the Convention. However, as regards section 25(1) of the Labour Relations Act, while having noted the Committee's concern that where a union had not managed to recruit 50 per cent of the workers at a workplace, representatives of non-unionized workers would be able to negotiate directly with the employer, even if a trade union existed at the enterprise, the speaker believed that this section promoted the concept of majority rule at the workplace. He therefore considered that workers were sufficiently protected. The speaker recalled that Zimbabwe had been appearing before this Committee on allegations of failure to comply with the Convention for the fourth consecutive year. Although it had been a learning experience, which had resulted in significant improvements to the labour legislation, each appearance had generated the kind of publicity that the country could well do without. He called on the Committee to give Zimbabwe and its social partners a chance to make progress on the case.

The Government member of Malawi stated that it had not been appropriate to put Zimbabwe on the list of individual cases. He had heard allegations that it originally had not been on the list, but had somehow been placed there at the last minute. He stated that this Committee's credibility rested on its objectivity and fairness. He noted from the Committee of Experts' report that Zimbabwe was cooperating with the ILO. This development needed to be encouraged instead of condemned. Social dialogue, especially as set out in Convention No. 144, could play an important role. He suggested that before a case went before this Committee, it should first be discussed in a tripartite setting at the national and regional levels. It was not clear whether this case had ever been discussed at these levels. He concluded by stating that it was important to promote the application of Convention No. 98. It was also important for this Committee to act openly and objectively.

The Government member of China stated that he had listened carefully to the response by the Government and to the discussion. It was clear from the Committee of Experts' report that Zimbabwe was amending the laws which had been the subject of concern. The Government representative had mentioned further actions which would be taken in this regard. The Government appeared to be making progress and needed more time. His delegation supported the efforts of the Zimbabwe Government and he urged the ILO to provide relevant technical cooperation.

The Government member of Canada expressed his concern regarding the fact that the Government had failed to follow up its stated intentions to adopt legislation in response to the questions raised by the Committee of Experts. Even though the legal framework had evolved, it was regrettable that the exercise of the right to collective bargaining, which included the right of workers to freely choose their representatives and the right of those representatives to perform their duties without interference, had become increasingly difficult. Moreover, those rights could not be fully exercised without respect for human rights, and there was reason to be deeply concerned by the recent upsurge in human rights violations in Zimbabwe. The speaker encouraged the Government of Zimbabwe to take the necessary steps to guarantee the right to collective bargaining of workers' organizations.

The Government member of Kenya stated that his Government had carefully studied the Committee of Experts' report and the response by the Government regarding conformity with the Convention. He noted that, during the last four years, Zimbabwe had been appearing before this Committee to provide information on the progress made with regard to issues raised by the ZCTU. In its reply, the Government had indicated efforts undertaken to redress the situation by carrying out legislative reform: a Bill had been brought before the Cabinet committee and would be promulgated in June 2005. The speaker wished to commend the Government for this legislative reform, which proved its willingness to cooperate with the ILO in addressing the concerns raised, and expressed the view that the Committee of Experts should allow the Government to complete this reform, in order to guarantee full compliance with the Convention. He also suggested that, taking into account the country's circumstances, the ILO should consider and offer technical assistance to Zimbabwe, in order to enable it to complete the review process and to bring legislation into line with the principles of the Convention.

The Government member of Cuba stated that, after having studied the most recent report of the Committee of Experts, he had been able to note that, in the case of Zimbabwe, there had been recognition of progress made in the reform of labour legislation. The speaker therefore wondered why Zimbabwe had been included in the list. He felt that it was not technically relevant to discuss such a case in the present Committee. The report of the Committee of Experts was not unfavourable towards Zimbabwe and had taken note of the progress made in a process in which perfection could not be aspired to over night. The issue in question and the request for the improvement of certain aspects of the country's labour legislation and its practical application could have been addressed in the next reporting cycle. The speaker indicated that the logical conclusion to all the above was that the inclusion of Zimbabwe in the list of countries appearing before the present Committee could be attributed to the same political reasons that had been repeatedly referred to as a negative element affecting the credibility of the Committee. He wished to express his firm belief that singling out Zimbabwe in the present Committee would not help the country to improve social dialogue. Finally, he expressed his hope that the conclusions would contain an offer of ILO technical assistance, which would contribute and be an effective support to the improvement of the reform process currently under way in Zimbabwe with the support of its Government.

The Government member of Nigeria stated that there was an evident need to talk about transparency in the establishment of the list of individual cases before this Committee. She recalled that her Government had stated last year before this Committee that it believed that the aim of the individual cases was not punitive, but rather to ensure that the social partners coexisted in a harmonious industrial relations environment and that ratified ILO standards were enshrined in national legislation. All the parties concerned should be encouraged to engage in social dialogue to resolve the issues at hand, and this Committee must be seen to be supporting this. The speaker pointed out that, during the last year, the Government of Zimbabwe had made remarkable progress in regard to the Committee of Experts' concerns and had responded positively by elaborating the Labour Act Amendment Bill H.B. 1 of 2005. The Government had indicated its willingness to amend the law with a view to bringing it into conformity with the Convention, and therefore should be collectively encouraged to do more, especially through ILO technical assistance, and to continue along this progressive path.

The Government member of Luxembourg, speaking on behalf of Governments of the Member States of the European Union, as well as of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Norway, Romania, Serbia and Montenegro, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine and the United States stated that the European Union was alarmed at the situation in Zimbabwe, given the news on constant politically motivated violence, restrictions on the freedom of opinion, expression, association and assembly. Independent trade unions were an important element of civil society, and in this context the European Union expressed its concern at the inability of independent organizations in Zimbabwe to operate without fear of harassment or intimidation. The speaker recalled that this case had been the subject of comments by the Committee of Experts for many years, and in recent years it had also been before this Committee. The European Union shared the regret of the Committee of Experts that the Government had not made sufficient efforts to amend the Labour Relations Act in order to meet the requirements of the Convention. However, it noted that the Government would table new legislation, which might aim at resolving some of the issues previously raised. The speaker urged the Government to bring the legislation into conformity with the Convention and to create an environment in which the right to collective bargaining could be assured.

The Government member of South Africa noted that the first paragraph of the Committee of Experts' observation on this case indicated that the Government of Zimbabwe was engaged in a process to respond to the issues that had been raised in this Committee the previous year. From what he had noted in the case, he was happy with the progress made. This raised the question of why Zimbabwe had nonetheless been selected for the list of individual cases, which appeared to be almost exclusively composed of developing countries. Where clear criteria did not exist, it was inevitable that those affected would question the method of selecting cases. The case was a clear example of the lack of transparency in the working methods of the Committee. He further noted that without social dialogue, the problems in this case would not be easy to solve. He called on the Committee to assist Zimbabwe's efforts in this case and to take every opportunity to promote relevant social dialogue.

During the speaker's intervention, the Chairperson recalled that statements should focus on the case at hand, and not on the working methods of the Committee, which had been the subject of a previous debate.

The Government member of Namibia expressed his surprise at the inclusion of Zimbabwe on the list of individual cases, as his Government had done the previous year, and stated that this fact raised serious questions about the working methods of the Committee. It was clear from the Committee of Experts' report that the Government of Zimbabwe was in the process of adopting legislative amendments in order to ensure conformity with the Convention. The speaker considered that the Government had been making progress and wished to congratulate it for its sustained efforts, positive actions and concrete steps to address the Committee of Experts' concerns. He stated that the Government must be given appropriate time to conclude the adoption of amendments.

The Government representative thanked the governments that had taken the floor in his country's support. With regard to the issues raised by the Worker members, he indicated that he had responded to them in his written reply to the Committee. The Worker members had also questioned the political will of the Government to resolve this case. He took great exception to this statement, and recalled that Zimbabwe had joined the ILO and had ratified ILO Conventions voluntarily. There could be no question about the political will of his Government to engage with the ILO. With regard to the question of the participation of the social partners in the drafting of the Labour Act Amendment Bill, he pointed out that the employers in Zimbabwe had participated in consultations, but the trade unions had refused, based on the advice of their foreign handlers who did not want to support the ZANU-PF Government. He recalled that this Bill, which addressed the problems raised by the Committee, was already on the Parliament's agenda and would most likely be debated in a few days. The speaker appealed to Zimbabwean workers to address any problems they had directly to the Government, and not seek international forums to do so. With regard to the intervention of the Government member of Canada, he questioned his capacity to provide solutions in this matter, given his distance from the country.

With regard to comments on Zimbabwe's informal economy, he stated that trade union claims of having established a flourishing informal economy were not true. The Government had allowed the informal economy to develop in the 1990s following an economic adjustment programme. While it had brought some economic relief, the informal economy had also allowed illegal activities to flourish, and its massive size was now causing serious infrastructure and public health problems. For these reasons, the recent police actions were necessary. Now the Government was building a new infrastructure to support the informal economy and people were returning to their activities. The support for the Government was clear from every election.

The Employer members expressed their appreciation for the information provided by the Government representative, which mentioned draft legislation that would soon be debated by Parliament. The Government should supply copies of these texts to the ILO. Turning to the question of the transparency in the process of selecting individual cases for this Committee, which had been raised by numerous delegations, the Employer members noted that the selection of a particular case was often due to a lack of certainty by members as to what was really happening in the country concerned. The Committee had always been ruled by a double credo: to trust, but also to verify. When the Committee selected an individual case for examination, it was often done to seek and verify information about what was happening on the ground. The best way to respond to a case was to provide complete and accurate information on the situation in question; if this was done, the case might disappear from the list. In this respect, they urged the Government to consider accepting a direct contacts mission to verify that the legislative measures under way in Zimbabwe indeed furthered the application of the Convention.

The Worker members regretted having to make the following statement prior to the drawing of conclusions on the case. They distanced themselves from the comments made by a Worker member of Zimbabwe, the Third Vice-President of the Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions (ZCTU), which was a purely honorific title. The ZCTU was represented at that meeting by its General Secretary, and its Chairperson. The latter was present as a member of the ICFTU, since the Government had refused to appoint him as a worker representative, which undermined the principles defended by the ILO. In that regard, the status of the above mentioned Worker member was the subject of a complaint pending before the Credentials Committee. The Committee should also know that Government representatives of Zimbabwe had, on this very day, both inside and outside the meeting room, exerted unacceptable pressure on the workers of Zimbabwe. Finally, the Worker members wished to highlight that they were aware that violations to the Convention existed in every country, as demonstrated by the examination of Australia's application of the Convention this year.

With regard to the case under examination, the Worker members emphasized the continuous lack of will shown by the Government, which would not take constructive steps to align its legislation with the Convention. In its 2003 conclusions, the present Committee had been accommodating and had proposed a direct contacts mission with a view to following in situ the planned legislative revision process. The Government had rejected that mission, which it considered as interference. The Worker members wondered what the new legislative changes were worth in a climate of permanent intimidation, and thus proposed a new direct contacts mission with a view to ensuring that the envisaged changes would comply with the Convention, both in law and practice.

The Worker members wished to point out that, for the sake of the serenity of the discussion, they had limited the number of their statements. That had not been case as far as the Government representatives were concerned. The discussion had therefore been imbalanced and that was regrettable.

The Government representative indicated that this was not the first occasion on which the present case had been discussed by the Committee and the Government wished to reaffirm its position, as stated previously, that it was not prepared to accept a direct contacts mission now.

The Worker members emphasized that the statement by the Government representative was regrettable as they had made every possible effort to approach the case in a positive manner and to demonstrate that a direct contacts mission was necessary. However, in view of the Government's attitude and its refusal to cooperate, the Worker members requested the inclusion of a special paragraph in the report of the Committee.

The Employer members noted that the Government representative had indicated that his country was not prepared to receive a direct contacts mission for now. As they believed that this was an indication that the Government representative did not have the authority to accept such a mission at this moment, and since the most important consideration was the ability to verify the situation at the national level and the action that was being taken, they proposed that consideration could also be given to the sending of a high-level ILO technical assistance mission to the country as an alternative. That would give the Government the opportunity before the Committee next met to accept one of these two alternatives as a means of demonstrating its good faith and willingness to participate in the verification process. The Employer members could not therefore at this stage support the proposal made by the Worker members for the Committee's conclusions on this case to be placed in a special paragraph of its report. However, they urged the Government to give serious consideration to agreeing to some type of meaningful verification arrangement involving the ILO.

The Committee took note of the written statement made by the Government and the oral information provided by the Government representative, the Minister of Public Service, Labour and Social Welfare, and of the debate that followed. The Committee noted with concern that the problems raised by the Committee of Experts referred to: the legal requirement that collective agreements be submitted for ministerial approval in order to guarantee that said provisions were equitable to consumers, to the general public or to any party to the collective agreement; the Minister's power to f ix a maximum wage and the maximum amount that may be payable by way of benefits, allowances, bonuses or increments by statutory instrument prevailing over any collective agreement; the legal provisions under which, if workers' committees (including non-unionized workers) concluded a collective agreement with the employer, that agreement must be approved by the trade union and more than 50 per cent of the workers; and the constitutional provisions depriving prison staff of the rights guaranteed by the Convention. The Committee also noted that the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) had submitted comments to the Committee of Experts and that two cases concerning Zimbabwe were currently pending before the Committee on Freedom of Association.

The Committee noted that the Government had informed the Committee of Experts that the provisions concerning the ministerial approval of collective agreements would be amended, although not in all cases provided for in the legislation, and that measures were being taken to repeal the provision giving the Minister the power to fix a maximum wage and the maximum amount that may be payable by way of certain benefits. The Committee noted the statement by the Government representative that, in keeping with this undertaking, the Bill to amend sections 22, 25(2)(b), 79(2)(b) and 81(1)(b) was due to be debated in Parliament this month. Consideration would also be given to amending other provisions mentioned by the Committee of Experts.

The Committee recalled the importance that it attached to the principle that the rights guaranteed by the Convention be applied in national law and practice and emphasized the importance of full social dialogue, as well as extensive consultation with employers' and workers' organizations on all legislation affecting them. Effective guarantees for this principle implied full respect for the independence of employers' and workers' organizations.

The Committee urged the Government to take all necessary measures to bring the law and practice into full conformity with the Convention, and expressed its hope that, in the very near future, it would be in a position to note concrete progress in connection with all the pending issues. The Committee requested the Government to submit a clear and comprehensive report to the Committee of Experts, with information on all the problems mentioned, a copy of the draft or the legislation adopted, and a full reply to the comments made by the ICFTU on the application of the Convention.

Taking into account the statement made by the Government representative to the effect that there was a certain degree of misunderstanding in the Committee with respect to the situation in the country, the Committee, in a fully constructive spirit, felt that a direct contacts mission could provide greater clarity on the situation, in particular on the ongoing legislative process.

The Government representative indicated that this was not the first occasion on which the present case had been discussed by the Committee and the Government wished to reaffirm its position, as stated previously, that it was not prepared to accept a direct contacts mission now.

The Worker members emphasized that the statement by the Government representative was regrettable as they had made every possible effort to approach the case in a positive manner and to demonstrate that a direct contacts mission was necessary. However, in view of the Government's attitude and its refusal to cooperate, the Worker members requested the inclusion of a special paragraph in the report of the Committee.

The Employer members noted that the Government representative had indicated that his country was not prepared to receive a direct contacts mission for now. As they believed that this was an indication that the Government representative did not have the authority to accept such a mission at this moment, and since the most important consideration was the ability to verify the situation at the national level and the action that was being taken, they proposed that consideration could also be given to the sending of a high-level ILO technical assistance mission to the country as an alternative. That would give the Government the opportunity before the Committee next met to accept one of these two alternatives as a means of demonstrating its good faith and willingness to participate in the verification process. The Employer members could not therefore at this stage support the proposal made by the Worker members for the Committee's conclusions on this case to be placed in a special paragraph of its report. However, they urged the Government to give serious consideration to agreeing to some type of meaningful verification arrangement involving the ILO.