Caso individual (CAS) - Discusión: 2002, Publicación: 90ª reunión CIT (2002)

Convenio sobre el derecho de sindicación y de negociación colectiva, 1949 (núm. 98) - Zimbabwe (Ratificación : 1998)

The Government has supplied the following information.

The major observation is that the Government's report has not been received by the Committee. Information is being requested in respect of the Committee's previous comments; it is contended, however, that the information has long been submitted. In the event that it was not received, herewith the Government's formal response.

1. Article 2 of the Convention

The concern of the Committee is that over and above sections 7, 8 and 9 of the Labour Relations Act, which guarantee protection against interference of or by and between unions, there is an undertaking under section 10 that the Minister may prescribe by notice acts/conduct which may be deemed to erode the right to organize and bargain collectively. The observation is that there has been no such notice by the Minister. The position, however, could well be that other than those instances mentioned in section 7 or those deemed to be unfair labour practices under sections 8 and 9, there have been no instances warranting publication of a notice prescribing certain conduct to be an unfair labour practice. It may perhaps be appropriate to provide for the unions or any other person to bring to the consideration of the Minister or Board issues or instances which they may wish the Minister to prescribe as unfair labour practices or instances of interference.

2. Article 4 of the Convention

(a) The Committee is concerned about sections 98, 99, 100, 106 and 107 of the Labour Relations Act which empower labour authorities to refer disputes to compulsory arbitration. It is the Committee's view that dispute settlement should not be curtailed or abruptly cut by reference to arbitration. The Committee suggests that measures should be taken to "encourage and promote the full development and utilization of machinery for voluntary negotiation between employers or employer organizations and workers' organizations by means of collective agreements ..." per Article 4. In our proposed amendment Bill, HB 19, which is currently before Parliament, sections 98, 99 and 100, which specifically relate to referrals to arbitration, and not 102 and 106, are being sought to be repealed. In the current Act under section 98, the Labour Relations Officer simply formed an opinion that a matter required arbitration and referred it to arbitration. However, under the amendment "Before referring a dispute to compulsory arbitration, the Labour Officer shall afford the parties a reasonable opportunity of making representations on the matter ...". Thus, the parties will be heard, they may consent (i.e. voluntary) or dispute and a determination will be made. This amendment should indeed address the issue of voluntariness provided for in Article 4. The issue raised in comment No. 2 is being redressed.

(b) Section 17(2) and Section 22 of the Labour Relations Act

(1) The Committee is concerned that section 17(2) of the Labour Relations Act provides that regulations made by the Minister in terms of section 17(1) to regulate "the development, improvement, protection, regulation and control of employment conditions and conditions of employment" supersede any other statutory instrument, agreement, or arrangement whatsoever, is too restrictive, and amounts to interference of the right to organize and collective bargaining. The suggestion is that any agreement however between parties to collective bargaining should be paramount. The same concern is raised with section 22 which empowers the Minister to fix a maximum wage and benefits, allowances, bonuses or increments. It is said these restrictions only apply in exceptional circumstances. It would be appropriate to note also that under Article 4 the measures which are to be taken to ensure exercise of that right are "appropriate to national conditions ...". In a sense the right is not absolute.

However, and most importantly, with regard to section 17(2), and the supremacy of ministerial regulations over agreements, it is observed that in terms of the new amendment HB 19 the power of the Minister to make the regulations is to be exercised "in consultation with the appropriate advisory council, if any, appointed in terms of section 19".

In the current Act, the Minister simply made regulations. With the amendment coming into force, any semblance of arbitrariness has been removed, and the regulations which the Minister makes will be informed, practical, and borne out of consultation and hence appropriate to national conditions, in keeping with Article 4. These advisory boards are appointed on a tripartite forum (see section 19).

Section 17(2) itself is being amended so as to ensure that the regulations would not derogate from any rights or better conditions that a party had prior to the regulations. As such the regulations would not supersede any agreements/arguments hitherto existing, nor do they bar the award of greater benefits than those provided for. In other words the regulations would provide for a basic minimum. The new section 17(2) will definitely be in accord with Article 4 of Convention No. 98.

(2) Section 22

In light of amendments to section 17(2), the current section 22 may no longer be valid, for section 22 provides for ceilings to maximum wages and benefits. However, should it be deemed valid, to an extent it takes into account "national conditions" as the Minister consults with the Minister of Finance before he fixes the maximum wages, which is not inconsistent with the conditions envisaged under Article 4.

(3) In sections 25, 79 and 81 vis-à-vis Article 4 the Committee is concerned that collective bargaining agreements are made subject to approval by the Minister as to whether they are consistent with national laws, and international labour laws and their inequitability or otherwise to consumers or the public and any party to a collective agreement. The Committee expresses the view that this power of approval under the Convention may only be exercised to determine whether there are no procedural flaws in the collective bargaining agreement or it does not conform to minimum standards laid by labour legislation. This may well be covered by section 17(2) which provides for basic minimums in agreements.

Article 4 of Convention No. 98, unless otherwise specifically repealed/amended, does not seem to provide for intervention where only procedural flaws in the bargaining process exist, or where there is only need to check for conformity with minimum standards. Quoting it in extenso it reads "Measures appropriate to national conditions shall be taken, where necessary, to encourage and promote full development and utilization of machinery for voluntary negotiation between employers or employers' organizations and workers' organizations, with a view to the regulation of terms and conditions of employment, by means of collective bargaining ...".

The new section 25(A) also gives recognition and weight to collective bargaining agreements negotiated by works councils at establishments. This should minimize interference by the authorities as long as the agreements are consistent with national laws. It will be observed that Article 4 itself recognizes the authority of national conditions by promoting the taking of measures "appropriate to national conditions ..." which should include national laws. The current position has the effect of avoiding unlawful agreement in the national context or those inconsistent with international labour laws to the prejudice of one or other of the parties. It is a system of checks and balances which is being provided for.

3. Article 6 of the Convention

The concern of the Committee touches on section 20 of the Public Service Act (Chapter 16:04) which provides for consultation between the Public Service Commission and "recognized associations and organizations in regard to the conditions of service of members of the Public Service who are represented by recognized associations/organizations concerned ...". The concern also further touches on S.I. 141/97 which provides for a Public Service Joint Negotiating Council, whose objective shall be to engage in mutual consultations upon and negotiate salaries, allowances and conditions of service in the Public Service (section 3(1)).

The actual concern of the Committee is that this set-up may be contrary to the provisions of the Convention's Article 6 which provides "This Convention does not deal with the position of public servants engaged in the administration of the State, nor shall it be construed as prejudicing their rights or status in any way". The question of the Committee is "whether public servants not engaged in the administration of the State negotiate collective agreements as well as participate in consultation discussions ...".

The current position is that under section 14 of the Public Service Act certain categories of employees are excluded from the Public Service Act. As such, section 20 would not apply to them, nor would S.I. 141/97. This category of persons includes:

(a) Judges

(b) Members of the Commission

(c) Members of a corporate body established under an Act of Parliament

(d) Defence forces

(e) Members of organization responsible for security in the President's office

(f) DDF trustee employees

(g) Director of state lotteries

(h) Anyone declared not to be part of public service

In fact these employees do not have recognized organizations or associations representing them, or any at all, for instance:

(1) Conditions of service of judges are provided for under the Constitution and the Judicial Service Commission.

(2) Those of the army, police and prisons fall under their own Act of Parliament and/or their respective commissions.

(3) The rest who are excluded are governed by the various acts which create them.

The reason for exclusion of all or most of these is not necessarily that they are working in an essential service for, in the strict sense of the term, it means "those services the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety and health of the whole or part of the population, and in case of acute national crisis".

In direct answer to the Committee's question, there is no current law providing for the right to organize and to collective bargaining of the workers excluded from the Public Service Act.

In addition, before the Conference Committee, a Government representative referred to the written information submitted by his Government. This same report had originally been sent to the Office well before the last session of the Committee of Experts, even though the Committee had indicated that it had not been received. He therefore raised the question as to whether the case should now be under examination by the Committee, since his Government had complied with its reporting obligations.

He added that the issues raised with regard to protection against interference in the activities of trade unions were being addressed in the Bill which was being prepared to amend the legislation. On the subject of the need for approval by the Minister for collective bargaining agreements, he said that this process was merely required to prevent procedural flaws and to ensure that the agreements were in accordance with the law. With regard to the right of negotiation of employees covered by the Public Service Act, he emphasized that the agreements reached in the Joint Negotiating Council also benefited any employees who were excluded from the Act, such as judges and members of the police force. He hoped that these clarifications of the written information supplied were helpful.

The Worker members considered that the date on which the Government had submitted its report was a matter to be determined by the Committee of Experts. They recalled that this case concerned one of the most fundamental rights of workers, which could be best exercised within an environment that guaranteed peace, democracy, social justice, respect for human rights and the rule of law. Unfortunately, the latter had become rare in Zimbabwe in recent times. The right to organize and collective bargaining was enshrined in the ILO Constitution, the Declaration of Philadelphia and the Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work. Indeed, the Committee on Freedom of Association had emphasized that, by virtue of its Constitution, the ILO was established in particular to improve working conditions and to promote freedom of association in the various countries. As a consequence, the matters dealt with by the ILO in this connection no longer fell within the exclusive sphere of states and the action taken by the ILO in this respect could not be considered interference in internal affairs, as they fell within the terms of reference received by the ILO from its members with a view to attaining its aims. As a result, the Government could not hide behind the fact that it had not yet ratified Convention No. 87, which was one of the Conventions whose principles had to be respected by virtue of being a member of the ILO. Accordingly, if the Worker members touched on the issues that impeded the exercise of free collective bargaining rights and workers' rights in general, this would not constitute a deviation from the main subject under discussion.

The Worker members emphasized that the freedoms of workers were systematically violated in the country and that interference in their affairs was sponsored. Over and above the legislative deficiencies cited by the Committee of Experts, acts of violence were organized by government-supported groups and individuals, who invaded employers' premises and demanded that recognition of legitimate unions be ended in their favour. The Worker members called upon the Government to fulfil its duty to ensure that jungle justice did not find its way into the workplace. The above practices, in addition to undermining collective bargaining rights, also caused job losses, company closures and economic problems. The ratification of a Convention by any government was a voluntary exercise of its sovereignty, but involved a commitment that effect would be given to the Convention in both law and practice. In the present case, the Government was in clear violation of both Articles 1 and 2, of the Convention. The Worker members therefore believed that it would be in the interests of peace and social justice for the ILO to send a direct contacts mission to the country with a view to contributing to the resolution of the problems of application of the Convention. A tripartite mission should also be organized to assess the situation in the country and advise the social partners accordingly on the measures to be taken for the achievement and maintenance of peace and social justice.

The Employer members recalled that, as the application of the Convention by Zimbabwe had not been referred to in the report of the Committee of Experts for the past two years, the Conference Committee had had no basis for discussing it. However, when adopting the list of cases the previous year, they had already announced the need to examine the case. The fact that the Government had neither submitted its reports nor replied to the comments of the Committee of Experts demonstrated its lack of collaboration. This had been underlined by the fact that the statement of the Government representative had been devoted in large part to putting forward reasons why this case should not be examined by the present Committee. The information submitted by the Government had replied to a number of issues raised by the Committee of Experts. It would therefore be appropriate to wait until the Committee of Experts had analysed this information. This was not because the Conference Committee doubted its capacity to analyse the case correctly, but because it was not possible for it to verify the legislation referred to, or to examine whether there were any further issues raised by the provisions not cited by the Government.

The Committee of Experts had raised several points, the first of which concerned the protection of workers' and employers' organizations against acts of interference by the State in matters pertaining to the internal affairs of the organizations. However, the Employer members considered that the criteria for the interference by the minister were not clear.

The next point raised by the Committee of Experts concerned the issue of compulsory arbitration which could be imposed by the labour authorities whenever they considered it appropriate. The Employer members agreed with the Committee of Experts that compulsory arbitration should only be imposed under certain conditions. However, the issue was rendered more difficult by the fact that collective agreements had a different legal nature in different countries. They could constitute statutory and therefore binding provisions, or simple recommendations, or that could be made binding by an act of authority, depending on the country. The legal nature of collective agreements therefore had to be determined before addressing the issue of compulsory arbitration. Moreover, compulsory arbitration itself was subject to differing interpretations, depending on whether the obligation related to the need to submit a dispute to arbitration or to the binding nature of the arbitration findings.

With regard to the provisions in the Labour Relations Act empowering the minister to set a minimum wage and maximum amounts of benefits, allowances, bonuses or increments, which were interpreted by the Worker members as limiting the right to collective bargaining, the Employer members recalled that trade unions were sometimes very much in favour of public authorities determining these amounts. They nevertheless agreed that these provisions did indeed constitute a limitation of the right of the social partners to engage in collective bargaining, the promotion of which was the objective of the Convention.

On the subject of the Public Service Act of 1996, which only provided for consultation with associations and organizations of public servants, the Employer members welcomed the approach adopted by the Committee of Experts of first requesting the Government to indicate the various groups of workers in the public service. They recalled in this respect that the right to collective bargaining also applied to public servants other than those engaged in the administration of the state.

In conclusion, the Employer members observed that there was a considerable lack of cooperation by the Government, not only with the ILO, but also with the social partners at the national level. They urged the Government to take into account the progress that needed to be made in the country through collaboration with the social partners. Moreover, they called upon the Government representative to indicate clearly whether he considered that a direct contacts mission to his country would be helpful and whether his Government would welcome such a mission.

The Worker member of Zimbabwe welcomed the comments of the Committee of Experts concerning the deficiencies in the Labour Relations Act, and particularly with regard to the right to organize and the need for free collective bargaining without external interference. He recalled that the Act was in the process of being amended and that this process had started in 1993. In this context, he referred to the cases of workers who were being dismissed because they belonged to a particular union as a result of activities by members of the Zimbabwe Federation of Trade Unions (ZFTU). He expressed concern that the Government was taking no action to prevent these unlawful activities by the ZFTU. He added that the ZFTU had been given the freedom to organize by coercive means, intimidation and unlawful behaviour. When the ZFTU turned its attention to a company, it would coerce workers to join its labour centre under the threat of being labelled opposition supporters. Where workers resisted, the ZFTU endeavoured to intimidate the employer. In some cases, employers were so frightened that they succumbed to the intimidation. He emphasized that the ZFTU had no negotiating structure. In contrast, the Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions (ZCTU) insisted on complying with the labour legislation in the country in its organization, recruitment and negotiation practices. Unfortunately, the Government did not appear to appreciate this approach to industrial relations.

He expressed the firm hope that at some stage the Government would realize that this situation was not good for the country. If Convention No. 98 was to be complied with, interference from undemocratic trade union organizations needed to be discouraged. Much progress needed to be made in the labour relations situation in his country, which was no longer subject to democratic process. He therefore called for a direct contacts mission to bring his country back to a more democratic industrial relations system.

The Worker member of Norway, speaking on behalf of the Nordic Workers' group, praised the brave fight and opposition of Zimbabwean workers over recent years against the grave violations committed by the Government. She said that there had been moments when she and her colleagues had been unsure whether they would see them safe and alive again. The violations of fundamental human and trade union rights in the country were so grave, that those currently under discussion constituted a mere fraction of the many attacks by the Government on the ZCTU. In recent times, the national authorities had shown no respect for ordinary labour laws. ZCTU meetings had been cancelled by the authorities and permission had even been refused to hold the annual commemoration of the death of over 400 workers in 1972 at the Hwange coal mine. Peaceful demonstrations had been declared illegal and trade union activists had been threatened, abducted and beaten. Visits by trade unionists from other countries had been prevented. Moreover, the establishment of another trade union central organization by the Government had not been carried out in good faith, but with a view to stifling the voices of workers and of the ZCTU.

The comments of the Committee of Experts showed that the Labour Relations Act and the Public Service Act were not in compliance with Article 2 of the Convention, which provided protection against Government interference. The imposition of compulsory arbitration whenever the labour authorities wished was also in violation of the Convention. Moreover, under the Labour Relations Act, collective agreements had to be approved by the authorities, in clear breach of the Convention. For many years, the authorities had refused to allow public servants not engaged in the administration of the state to negotiate collective agreements. Further restrictions were also being imposed through labour legislation. The spirit of collective bargaining, freedom of association and the right of workers to join a trade union of their own free will seemed to have been replaced by coercion, threats and intimidation. The ZCTU faced a threat to its very existence following the adoption of the Public Order and Security Act. Recourse through the courts was to no avail, as court rulings were flouted by the authorities. Action was required to improve matters on all of these questions and there was undoubtedly a need for a direct contacts mission to help the authorities rewrite the labour laws in accordance with the Convention.

The Worker member of Malawi noted with concern the interference by the Government in the activities of the ZCTU, in violation of the principles of freedom of association. It was clear from the report of the Committee of Experts that workers' rights in the country were being undermined. In the same way as any other citizen in Zimbabwe, workers had the constitutional right to express their views freely. Yet, the authorities had interfered with trade union meetings under the pretext of the public interest. This was particularly hard to understand in view of the Government's earlier support for the interests of workers. He feared that this situation might have the effect of jeopardizing workers' rights in neighbouring countries. In view of the essential nature of the contribution of workers to development, it was vital that measures be taken to resolve these issues rapidly. He called upon the Committee of Experts and the present Committee to take up the issue and urged the Government to take action as soon as possible so that justice could prevail in the country.

The Worker member of South Africa expressed deep concern at the violation of human and trade union rights and the breakdown of the rule of law in Zimbabwe, which were of serious concern to all the social partners in South Africa. He recalled that the case had been under examination since 1993 and that the Government had undertaken to draft a bill that would be in conformity with the provisions of the Convention. Nevertheless, legislation had still not been adopted ten years later. What was at issue was not only the Labour Relations Act and the Public Service Act, but also the security legislation, which affected the operations of the ZCTU, and the government-backed violence and intimidation against the ZCTU's members and leadership. The labour legislation placed limitations on collective bargaining and encouraged employers to set up workers' committees to undermine the regular trade unions. The Public Service Act denied the right of public servants to join unions. Moreover, the legislation contained a long and cumbersome procedure to be followed before workers went on strike. The definition of essential services in which strikes were prohibited was also too wide. In essence, all strikes were illegal. Moreover, export processing zones were exempt from the provisions of the labour legislation and workers in the zones were denied legal representation and the right to strike. The situation had been aggravated over the past two years by the systematic violence and intimidation against trade union leaders. He therefore called upon the Government to accept a direct contacts mission to resolve these issues.

The Employer member of Norway expressed deep concern at developments in Zimbabwe and urged the Government to take all the necessary action to comply with the Convention, based on the comments of the Committee of Experts. However, he made a legal remark concerning the conclusions of the Committee of Experts in paragraph 2 of its observation concerning compulsory arbitration. The statement concerning the criteria to be used in order to refer a conflict to compulsory arbitration was, in his view, too narrow and was not supported by the text of the Convention, nor the circumstances or intentions. He recalled that the legal basis for this opinion was comprehensively set out in the Employers' handbook on ILO standards-related activities, published by the ILO in 2001. In his opinion, a country which recognized the full right to strike and had, as a national assembly or parliament which supervised the government, the right under ILO Conventions to refer a strike to compulsory arbitration in exceptional cases, also had the right to refer a strike to compulsory arbitration when it affected the economy of the country and third parties in a serious way. Nevertheless, the parties should be afforded every opportunity to negotiate and no dispute should be referred to compulsory arbitration until it was clear that a strike would take place, and normally not until its effects could be monitored and evaluated. In the present case, it was clear that the powers vested in the authorities to refer a conflict to compulsory arbitration in Zimbabwe were far too extensive. He therefore urged the Government to make the necessary amendments to its legislation.

The Government member of Finland, also speaking on behalf of the Government members of Denmark, Iceland, Norway and Sweden, said that the situation in Zimbabwe gave rise to concern. She noted the information provided by the Government representative on the Bill to amend the Labour Relations Act. However, it appeared that the Bill did not adequately address the discrepancies between the requirements of the Convention and the national legislation. According to the information provided, the Government still appeared to be able to use its authority to decide the extent to which the Convention was applied in practice. She therefore urged the Government to ensure that the Committee of Experts received its report and a copy of the new Bill without delay so that it could assess whether the amendments complied with the provisions of the Convention. She also urged the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that workers who were excluded from the Public Service Act enjoyed the right to organize and collective bargaining.

The Worker member of Greece supported the statements made by the Worker members and expressed his solidarity with the workers of Zimbabwe. The written response of the Government, was not plausible and was far from being satisfactory. Article 4 of the Convention, which provided that measures appropriate to national conditions should be taken, where necessary, to encourage and promote the utilization of machinery for voluntary negotiation of collective agreements, should not be interpreted in a manner which disregarded the reasons why the Convention had been adopted. The Convention provided that the law had to guarantee the right to free collective bargaining. Citizens had the duty to obey the law, but only when it was a product of democratic process and was in conformity with the Constitution of the country. Furthermore, national law had to respect international conventions signed by the country. Serious allegations had been made and they had to be mentioned in the conclusions. A direct contacts mission should also be sent to Zimbabwe, as requested by the Employer and Worker members, to ensure that the Convention was applied and that workers and citizens had the right to freedom of association, and to freedom in general.

The Employer member of Zimbabwe recalled that the information received from the Government needed to be analysed by the Committee of Experts before the present Committee could examine the case or propose a direct contacts mission. While a discussion of the information provided by the Government was acceptable in the present Committee, its members should refrain from discussing general issues concerning Zimbabwe. In particular, any reference to what he called pseudo-unions was entirely judgemental. He indicated that employers in the country were not in a position to judge whether an organization was good or bad, but that they merely had to deal with the organizations that their workers joined. However, he said that the ZCTU gave rise to problems because it was an organization that was of a political nature. It had founded a political party and withheld recognition of the Government. It was extremely difficult to enter into constructive social dialogue with an organization of that nature. He indicated that many individual workers complained that the union was taking an overly political stance in many of its activities. He emphasized that the right to freedom of association did not prevent the existence of more than one trade union central organization. In conclusion, he urged the Committee to follow the proper procedure and not to propose measures such as a direct contacts mission until it had had the opportunity to review the analysis of the case by the Committee of Experts, based on the information provided by the Government.

A Government representative (Minister of Public Service, Labour and Social Welfare) thanked the speakers for their comments. He recalled that the Government, far from opposing trade unions and political parties, had fought for their inclusion in society when they had been severely weakened by the previous regime. It was not possible for the Government to ban a trade union or employers' organization, even though the situation in his country was somewhat volatile as a result of the economic conditions, which affected the livelihood of both employers and workers. The measures that were currently being taken were designed to empower the people through the redistribution of land and the development of industry. He reaffirmed that it was the role of the Government to be extremely sensitive to developments at the workplace and recalled that collective bargaining had been practised for many years. Workers in an economy with a surplus of labour were subject to an unequal playing field and it was therefore beneficial to determine minimum and maximum wages with a view to improving their situation. He recalled that the minimum wage had been negotiated by the social partners, including the ZCTU, which had been considered the most representative workers' organization at that time. He denied that the Government interfered in collective bargaining and explained that the role of the Ministry was to put the terms of collective agreements into law through enabling measures, without altering what had been agreed to. He also indicated that, although the amendments to the labour legislation had been slow, the Labour Relations Act would be amended later in the year.

He recalled that this information had been provided to the Committee of Experts in the Government's report the previous year. His Government was fully aware of its responsibilities and would provide any other information required by the Committee of Experts. He added that the analysis of the Public Service Act by the Committee of Experts had not been correct. Although certain categories of public servants were excluded from collective bargaining, such as judges and the defence forces, their conditions were subject to negotiation in the respective commissions.

He regretted that the comments by certain speakers had gone beyond the matters raised in the observation of the Committee of Experts. He took exception to the inference that the rule of law was not observed in his country and to any allegation that his Government was responsible for the harassment of workers. While the authorities were required to use violence to deal with individuals who resorted to violence, certain of the comments made had constituted propaganda against his country. The ILO should be used as a forum to improve the labour market, not for propaganda purposes. Although his Government was pleased to receive assistance from the ILO, he believed that a direct contacts mission would be premature. The correct procedure should be followed, with the matter first being dealt with by the Committee of Experts, which should request further information on any issues that were not clear. He recalled that negotiations were still under way on amendments to the labour legislation. When the Bill had been adopted, the new legislation would be sent to the Committee of Experts for its examination.

The Employer members urged the Government to encourage the participation of the social partners in improving the situation and in preparing new labour legislation. They regretted that the Government had not submitted reports to the Committee of Experts in recent years and that this year's report had not arrived in time. They also regretted the refusal by the Government representative to accept a direct contacts mission and called upon the Government to provide a full report to the Committee of Experts as soon as possible, with full accompanying documentation. Based on the analysis of this report by the Committee of Experts, the Conference Committee would decide next year whether its conclusions on the case should be placed in a special paragraph of its report.

The Worker members objected to a number of derogatory comments that had been made during the discussion which had called into question democratically elected workers' leaders and their right to participate in international organizations. They recalled the need for the members of the Committee to observe moderation in their language and expressed the belief that the comments made by the Employer member of Zimbabwe were not endorsed by the Employer members as a whole. Turning to the issues under discussion, they emphasized that the fundamental right to collective bargaining could only be given full effect in the absence of interference by other parties. This right was not observed in practice when the results of collective bargaining, namely collective agreements, had to be approved by a third party. The Worker members were not opposed to a multiplicity of organizations, provided that all of the organizations were genuine and complied with the law, and were not imposed by the use of force. They recalled that the Government had a duty to protect both workers and employers from thugs who hijacked collective bargaining rights at the shop-floor level. In this respect, they regretted that the Government was not prepared to receive an ILO direct contacts mission, which could be instrumental in preparing amendments to bring the labour legislation into conformity with the Convention and to improve the general situation with regard to freedom of association and trade union rights. The Worker members looked forward to examining the case once again next year. If no progress had been made and the Government demonstrated a similar attitude on that occasion, the Committee's conclusions should be set out in a special paragraph of its report.

The Worker members stated that if the arrogant attitude demonstrated by the Government were to continue, they would have to recommend a special paragraph the next time the application of this Convention by Zimbabwe was examined.

The Committee took note of the written information submitted by the Government, of the statement made by the Government representative and of the ensuing discussion. The Committee noted that the comments of the Committee of Experts dealt with problems in respect of the application of Article 2 of the Convention (protection against acts of interference), Article 4 (promotion of collective bargaining) and Article 6 (scope of application). The Committee noted that the amendments made to the legislation on collective bargaining were currently before Parliament. It expressed the firm hope that such amendments would eliminate all remaining obstacles to the right to free collective bargaining in law and practice. It requested the Government to transmit the Bill to the Committee of Experts. On the other points raised in the comments of the Committee of Experts (protection against acts of interference and scope of application of the Convention), the Committee requested the Government to take the necessary measures urgently, in full consultation with the social partners concerned, to ensure that workers' and employers' organizations were effectively protected against acts of interference, and so that public servants not engaged in the administration of the State enjoyed the right to collective bargaining. The Committee suggested that the Government should have recourse to an ILO mission to contribute to the resolution of the problems of application of the Convention. In the event that the Government did not accept such a mission, the Committee would take the appropriate measures in this respect next year. The Committee finally requested the Government to provide detailed information in this regard to the Committee of Experts so that the Conference Committee could examine this case next year.

The Worker members stated that if the arrogant attitude demonstrated by the Government were to continue, they would have to recommend a special paragraph the next time the application of this Convention by Zimbabwe was examined.