Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2024, published 113rd ILC session (2025)

Termination of Employment Convention, 1982 (No. 158) - Uganda (Ratification: 1990)

Article 4 of the Convention and Part IV of the report form. Application of the Convention in practice. The Committee recalls that for many years it has been requesting the Government to provide information on the manner in which the Employment Act No. 6 of 2006 (Employment Act) is applied in practice, including copies of court decisions involving questions of principle relating to the Convention, statistics on the activities of the appellate bodies and number of terminations for economic or similar reasons. The Government indicates in its report that pursuant to section 65(1)(a) and 58(1)(a) of Employment Act, a contract of service shall not be terminated by an employer unless notice is given to the employee, except if an employment contract is terminated summarily. Pursuant to Employment Act, an employer must give a valid reason for termination connected with the capacity or conduct of the worker or other reasons. Moreover, section 73 of the Employment Act states that termination shall be unfair if it is based on invalid grounds (section 75) or if the employer did not act in accordance with justice and equity, while section 66(1) requires an employer to, before reaching a decision to dismiss an employee on the grounds of misconduct or poor performance, explain to the employee the reason for the dismissal. The Government refers to three judicial decisions on unjustified dismissals. It notes that in one of these decisions, Bank of Uganda Vs. Joseph Kibuuka & Four Others (Civil Appeal No. 181 of 2016), the Court of Appeal of Uganda reasserts the principle that an employer can terminate the contract of employment without a valid reason by giving notice or payment in lieu of notice. Noting that the Employment Act No. 6 of 2006 (Employment Act) and the judicial practice, in particular, the decision in Bank of Uganda Vs. Joseph Kibuuka & Four Others (Civil Appeal No. 181 of 2016), seem to set out two different principles on whether a valid reason is required for termination of employment, the Committee requests the Government to clarify the situation taking into account the obligations assumed under Article 4 of the Convention providing that the employment of a worker cannot be terminated unless there is a valid reason for such termination. It further reiterates its request that the Government provide information on the practical application of the Convention, including available statistics on the activities of the bodies of appeal (such as the number of appeals against unjustified termination, the outcome of such appeals, the nature of the remedy awarded and the average time taken for an appeal to be decided) and on the number of terminations for economic or similar reasons.

Article 2(3). Adequate safeguards. The Committee previously noted that, pursuant to section 65(1)(b) of Employment Act, termination of employment contracts established for a specified term or task takes place with the expiry of the term or completion of the task. The Committee notes that the Government does not provide information in response to its previous request on whether adequate safeguards are provided against recourse to such contracts with the aim of avoiding the protection resulting from this Convention. The Committee observes that Employment Act does not indicate whether there are any limitations to the duration or renewal of employment contracts established for a specified term or task, and that in the absence of safeguards against recourse to such contracts, a worker could receive successive fixed-term contracts for an unlimited period of time. It recalls in this regard that Article 2(3) of the Convention calls for adequate safeguards to be provided against recourse to contracts of employment for a specified period of time, the aim of which is to avoid the protection resulting from the Convention. The Committee urges the Government to provide information on the safeguards against recourse to employment contracts established for a specified term or task, in particular, on any measures taken or envisaged to limit recourse to successive fixed-term contracts, the aim of which is to avoid the protection resulting from the Convention.

Article 2(6). Exclusions. In response to the Committee’s previous comments, the Government merely reiterates its previous comment that section 3(2) of the Employment Act excludes: (i) employers and dependent relatives when they are the only employees in a family undertaking and the total number of dependent relatives does not exceed five; and (ii) the Uganda Peoples’ Defence Forces, provided that they are not civilian employees. The Committee urges the Government to provide information on the legal texts which govern the conditions under which these categories of workers could be dismissed.

Article 5. Invalid reasons for termination. The Committee previously requested the Government to indicate how effect is given to Article 5(d) of the Convention with respect to workers with family responsibilities and Article 5(e) with respect to maternity leave. The Committee observes that pursuant to section 75(a) of Employment Act, pregnancy or reasons connected to pregnancy, including maternity leave, shall not constitute valid reasons for dismissal. Noting, once again, the absence of information in the Government’s report concerning Article 5(d) of the Convention, the Committee urges the Government to indicate how effect is given to this Article of the Convention with respect to workers with family responsibilities.

Article 6. Temporary absence from work. The Committee previously noted that section 75(1) of Employment Act provides a maximum duration of temporary absence from work of three months, and requested the Government to specify whether medical certification for such absence is required. Noting, once again, the absence of information in this regard, the Committee urges the Government to indicate whether there is a requirement for medical certification under the terms of Article 6(1) of the Convention to justify temporary absence from work.

Article 9(2). Burden of proof. Operational requirements of the undertaking. In reply to the Committee’s previous comments, the Government refers to section 103 of the Evidence Act (CAP 6), which provides that “the burden of proof as to any particular fact lies on that person who wishes the court to believe in its existence, unless it is provided by any law that the proof of that fact shall lie on any particular person”. The Committee further notes that, pursuant to section 68 (1) of Employment Act, the employer shall prove the reason for the dismissal in any claim arising out of termination, otherwise the dismissal shall be deemed unfair. The Committee observes that this section, by placing the burden of proof on the employer, gives effect to Article 9(2)(a) of the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the practical application of section 68 (1) of Employment Act No. 6 of 2006(Employment Act)in appeals against unjustified termination of employment and provide copies of relevant court decisions. It also requests the Government to specify whether courts are empowered under section 71(5) of the Employment Act to determine whether the termination was based on the operational requirements of the undertaking and the extent to which courts are empowered to decide whether these reasons justify the termination.

Article 11. Summary dismissal. The Committee previously requested the Government to provide information on the application in practice of section 69(3) of Employment Act, which entitles the employer to dismiss summarily “where the employee has, by his or her conduct indicated that he or she has fundamentally broken his or her obligations arising under the contract of service”. Noting that the Government does not provide specific information in this regard, the Committee urges the Government to provide information on the application of section 69(3) of the Employment Act No. 6 of 2006 (Employment Act) in practice, by supplying copies of judicial decisions involving questions of summary dismissal.

Article 12. Severance payments. The Committee previously requested the Government to indicate how section 89 of Employment Act No. 6 of 2006, that provides for the calculation of severance pay, is applied in practice. Noting that the Government does not provide specific information in this regard, the Committee urges the Government to indicate how section 89 of the Employment Act No. 6 of 2006 (Employment Act) is applied in practice and whether the amount of the severance allowance is based on the workers’ length of service and the level of wages. Furthermore, it once again requests the Government to indicate how summary dismissal is defined with respect to section 88(1) of Employment Act.

Article 13. Consultation of workers’ representatives. The Committee previously requested the Government to indicate how Article 13(1)(b) is applied in practice. It noted, in particular, that section 81(1)(a) of Employment Act states that if an employer contemplates the termination of not less than ten employees over a period of not more than three months for reasons of an economic, technological, structural or similar nature, it shall provide the representatives of the labour union with relevant information at least four weeks before the termination. The Committee notes in this regard the Government’s reference to the Employment Regulations of 2011, which regulates collective termination procedures. The Committee once again requests the Government to indicate how Article 13(1)(b) of the Convention is applied in practice and, in particular, in what manner provision is made for an opportunity for consultation, how far before the contemplated terminations such opportunity must be given, and the objects of such consultation.