Cas individuel (CAS) - Discussion : 2003, Publication : 91ème session CIT (2003)

Convention (n° 98) sur le droit d'organisation et de négociation collective, 1949 - Zimbabwe (Ratification: 1998)

The Government supplied the following information.

As the Zimbabwe Government is appearing for the second time before the Committee on the Application of Standards in relation to Convention No. 98, it is critical to point out at the outset that the concerns relate to legislative issues which have since been addressed through the passage of the Labour Relations Amendment Bill on 19 December 2002.

The Committee will recall that at the last session on 12 June 2002 Zimbabwe did indicate that the issues were being taken care of by legislative process. The same point was included in the report submitted in terms of article 22 of the ILO Constitution on Convention No. 98, in July 2002.

As soon as the Labour Relations Amendment Bill was passed by Parliament, copies were duly served to the ILO via ILO/SAMAT and ILO/SWISS Project on Social Dialogue and Dispute Settlement in Southern Africa on 15 January 2003, even before the official promulgation of the Bill on 7 March 2003. This demonstrates the Government's commitment to undertakings made at the previous session of the Conference Committee in relation to submission of legislative changes to the ILO once adopted. Therefore it cannot be an issue that Zimbabwe did not submit its Bill before the Committee of Experts sat, since the amendments were still being considered by the competent authority and the ILO was kept informed at all material times.

1. Protection of workers' organizations against acts of interference of employers' organizations and vice versa

As one of the outputs of the labour law reform, labour regulations to cover acts of interference were promulgated as Statutory Instrument 131/2003 - in line with Article 2 of Convention No. 98.

2. Compulsory arbitration in the context of collective bargaining agreement imposed by the authorities at their own initiative

With the coming of the Labour Relations Amendment Act 17/2002, sections 98, 99 and 100 were all repealed and sections 106 and 107 were amended. Under section 106 "show cause" orders could be applied now only to unprocedural collective job action, and, under section 107 disposal orders could be issued by the Labour Court instead of the Labour Officer. The Labour Relations Amendment Act introduced a new dispute settlement mechanism which had not been envisaged at the June 2002 Conference.

The new mechanism categorically distinguishes between disputes of right and disputes of interest. With respect to disputes of right one cannot go on collective job action but to adjudication as it is merely a question of enforcing existing rights. As regards disputes of interest, parties have the right to resort to collective job action. However, parties in an essential service cannot resort to collective job action, but are referred to compulsory arbitration. Generally, parties are referred to compulsory arbitration whether it is a dispute of right or a dispute of interest with their consent. Moreover, the new section 82 under Act 17/2002 states that: "If a registered collective bargaining agreement provides procedure for the conciliation and arbitration of any category of dispute, that procedure is the exclusive procedure for the determination of disputes within that category." This gives effect to Article 4 of the Convention.

3. Other limitations to the right to collective bargaining

(a) Ministerial powers to fix maximum wages. Whereas under section 22, which has not been repealed or amended by Act 17/2002, the Minister may make regulations specifying maximum wages, there is provision under section 22(2) for application for exemption from the application of a maximum wage notice. The power to fix maximum wages is therefore not absolute. The request to repeal this section may not be appropriate given the level of our economic development. Some agreements can cause distortions in the economy.

(b) Approval of collective bargaining agreements. Sections 25(2), 79 and 81 of the Act remain intact. The duty of the Minister under these sections will be solely to ensure compliance with national laws.

Our position is that it is in the national interest to protect consumers and the general public given the level of our economic development.

Section 25(1), in the view of the Committee, dilutes the functions of trade unions vis-à-vis collective bargaining. This was addressed by the amendment of section 23 which now links workers' committees to trade unions.

(c) Prison staff - the Public Service Act and collective bargaining. In accordance with section 2A(3) the Labour Act now has supremacy over any other enactment which is inconsistent with it. To the extent that the Public Service Act, especially section 14, is inconsistent with the Labour Act in excluding certain categories of state employees from its ambit, the Labour Act prevails. The Public Service Act and the Labour Act agree that the prison service be excluded from being employees of the State, being a disciplined force. The prison service is therefore appropriately excluded.

With regards to the rest of the services of employees mentioned in section 14, those who are employees of the State and have not been designated by the President in terms of section 3(2)(b) of the Labour Act, continue to be governed by the Labour Act and they can now rightly organize. So those in the state lotteries and other instances cited under section 14(c) or (h) are now governed by the Labour Act unless they are found to be involved in the administration of the State. So, prima facie, such employees have been endowed with the right to organize as embodied in law and in Convention No. 98.

(d) With respect to the question concerning teachers, nurses and other civil servants not directly engaged in the administration of the State, it should be confirmed that they negotiate collective bargaining agreements. In accordance with new labour legislation, they can form employment councils in terms of section 56 or section 57 of the Labour Act. The duties of employment councils, as outlined in section 62 of the Act, are to conclude agreements in the industry, as well as to resolve disputes between the unions and the employer (Public Service Commission). As from year 2000, several such agreements were concluded relating to the State Pensions Act and the cost-of-living adjustment, which covered 167,890 civil servants.

4. Conclusion

Zimbabwe submits that its listing in respect of Convention No. 98 was uncalled for and unnecessary given the Labour Law reform processes which commenced immediately after the 90th Session of the ILC (June 2002). Such processes involved all social partners in Zimbabwe and some of the structures of the Office. This is known by Workers and Employers from Zimbabwe.

A Government representative (Minister of Public Service, Labour, and Social Welfare) contended that the legislative issues leading up to his country's second appearance before the Committee had been adequately addressed by the Labour Relations Amendment Act (No. 17), 2002, a copy of which had been sent to the Office in January 2003, after the session of the Committee of Experts. He added that the Act was an output of the labour law reform process commenced in 1993. He also indicated that a number of draft texts leading up to the Bill had been sent to the Committee of Experts for examination with a view to receiving guidance, but not to make a case against his country. It had been for this reason that his Government had declined the direct contacts mission proposed the previous year, since the concerns raised were about to be addressed by the ongoing labour law reform process. Moreover, and in addition to the involvement of organized labour and business, this process was receiving technical assistance from the ILO/Swiss project on social dialogue and dispute settlement in southern Africa.

With regard to the protection of workers' organizations against acts of interference by employers' organizations, and vice versa, he noted that special regulations had been adopted which were in conformity with Article 2 of the Convention. A copy of these regulations had been submitted to the Office. In relation to the concern expressed by the Committee of Experts regarding compulsory arbitration in the context of collective bargaining, he said that this had been addressed by the new dispute settlement mechanism that had been established. An important feature of this mechanism was the separation of disputes of rights from disputes of interest. As a result of the repeal of sections 98, 99 and 100 of the Labour Relations Act, and the amendment of sections 106 and 107, compulsory arbitration was now by consent and was only applied in respect of disputes of right and with respect to disputes of interest where conciliation had failed in essential services only.

With regard to the powers of the Minister to fix maximum wages in consultation with a tripartite advisory council, he indicated that this power was not absolute and that a concerned party could apply for exemption. The same applied to minimum wages. Noting that Article 4 of the Convention allowed for "measures appropriate to national conditions" to be taken to encourage and promote the full development and utilization of machinery for voluntary negotiation between employers and employers' organizations and workers' organizations, he said that it was within the ambit of these terms that measures were taken, in light of national conditions, to fix both minimum and maximum wages. He added that it was common practice to set a minimum level for the price of labour taking into account economic trends, the cost of living and the bargaining strength or weakness of labour. Similar considerations applied with regard to the approval of collective bargaining agreements, with a view to the protection of consumers and the general public, given the level of economic development of the country. In this sense, the law was not in violation of Article 4 of the Convention. Moreover, ministerial approval was given with a view to ensuring that agreements were within the confines of national law. He therefore concluded that the right to bargain collectively was not absolute under Article 4 of the Convention, although he would be guided by the interpretation of the Committee of Experts on this matter.

With reference to the concern expressed by the Committee of Experts with regard to section 25(1) of the Act, he said that this issue had been addressed by the amendment of section 23, which now linked workers' committees to trade unions. The purpose of the amendment was to ensure that the members of the workers' committee in an enterprise in which no fewer than 50 per cent of the workers belonged to the trade union operating in the sector were in fact members of that trade union. This meant that collective bargaining at the enterprise level was undertaken with the blessing of the trade union concerned.

With regard to the comments of the Committee of Experts regarding collective bargaining by prison staff and in the public service, he cited the information provided in document D.10. In conclusion, he submitted that the Committee should take note of these legislative changes and allow the Committee of Experts to examine them at its next session. The issues raised by the Committee of Experts were of a legalistic nature and the Conference Committee would need to take into account the views of the Committee of Experts in order to hold an informed technical discussion. He said that his country had benefited immensely from the comments made by the Committee of Experts, but hoped that the present Committee would not politicize a discussion which should be confined to technical issues. Finally, he said that the one remaining issue concerned the legislation on export processing zones, which provided that the Labour Relations Act did not apply in such zones, but which had inexplicably been left out of the labour law reform process up to now.

The Worker members expressed their gratitude to the Government for information provided and recalled that this case had been discussed the previous year. They regretted that the Government had not accepted the ILO mission proposed by the Committee last year, and that it had not transmitted to the Committee of Experts before January 2003 the draft amendments to the Labour Relations Act. This delay had interfered with the smooth functioning of the Committee of Experts. They stated that they had not been convinced that the draft law responded to the recommendations of the Committee of Experts, and that the analysis of the draft by the Committee of Experts still remained necessary.

The Worker members noted that section 22 of the Labour Relations Act, which authorized the Minister to fix, by statutory instrument, the maximum wage had not been repealed. They asked the Government to clarify its statement that the Minister did not have absolute competence in this regard. They recalled that the Committee of Experts in its latest report had asked the Government to take the necessary measures to amend or repeal section 17 of the Labour Relations Act, which provided that regulations made by the Minister prevailed over any agreement or arrangement. They regretted that the Government had not provided information in this regard.

The Worker members expressed their concern with respect to the human rights situation in Zimbabwe. They referred to cases of arbitrary arrest, torture and violations of the freedom of expression. They indicated, by way of illustration, that last April the Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions (ZCTU) had organized a demonstration to protest against the rise in oil prices and that on that occasion 20 members of the Confederation had been imprisoned. They also referred to Case No. 2184 of the Committee on Freedom of Association, concerning allegations that police officers had forcefully entered the premises of the ZCTU. In this case, the Committee on Freedom of Association had recalled that the entry by police into trade union premises without a judicial warrant constitutes a serious and unjustifiable interference in trade union activities. The Committee on Freedom of Association had requested the Government to ensure that the principles of non-interference by the authorities in the meetings and internal affairs of trade unions were respected and to implement the order of the High Court of Zimbabwe to prevent police intervention in the meetings of trade unions in future.

Finally, the Worker members requested the Government to accept a direct contacts mission. They indicated that if it refused, they would be obliged to demand that the conclusions of the Committee on this case be placed in a special paragraph of its report.

The Employer members, noting that this was not the first time that the case had been examined by the Committee, regretted that the Government had not accepted the proposed direct contacts mission the previous year, which would have been useful in overcoming the difficulties relating to the application of the Convention. The main concerns of the Committee of Experts related to the lack of overall protection against interference in the internal affairs of employers' and workers' organizations, although the Employer members indicated that Article 2 of the Convention did not appear to contain specific provisions on the protection required in this respect. The Employer members noted the indication by the Government representative that proposals had been requested from employers' and workers' organizations before the new legislation had been considered. They called for full information on this matter to be provided in the Government's report.

With regard to compulsory arbitration and the amendments to the Labour Relations Act, they said that further detailed information would be required to obtain an overall picture of the situation with regard to the new legislation. In this respect, they emphasized that the imposition of compulsory arbitration should be an exception to the general principle of free collective bargaining. Without wishing to enter into abstract arguments about where the limits of compulsory arbitration lay, they advocated a step-by-step approach so as to develop conditions adapted to the specific situation. Nevertheless, they expressed doubt that these conditions should be set as high as suggested by the Committee of Experts, which called for them to be limited to an acute national crisis. On the other hand, the determination of such conditions should not be left to the discretion of the public authorities. The issue was therefore complex and needed to be weighed carefully, taking into account all the related aspects.

On the subject of section 17(2) of the Act, which provided that regulations made by the Minister prevailed over any agreement and arrangement reached by the social partners, they noted that this provision appeared to provide the Minister with broad discretion to influence very substantially collective agreements, particularly in the very important area of remuneration. Moreover, section 22 of the Act, by giving the Minister the authority to fix a maximum wage, constituted clear interference in the freedom of collective bargaining where such agreements had already fixed the level of wages. They added that the requirements set out in sections 25(2), 79 and 81 of the Act relating to ministerial approval of collective agreements constituted a clear violation of the right to collective bargaining and they noted an increase in national regulation and control in this area.

The Employer members observed, however, that the requirement set out in section 25(1) of the Act, under which an agreement reached between workers' committees and the employer had to be approved by the trade union and by more than 50 per cent of the employees was a more complex issue. It would be necessary to return to this matter and its compliance with Article 4 of the Convention once further information had been supplied. Nevertheless, they noted that all the measures adopted to control collective bargaining were enforceable by sanctions, including up to one year of imprisonment, which clearly showed the will of the Government to exercise strong control over the collective bargaining process. They further noted that the section of the Act relating to remuneration was entitled "wages and salary control", which clearly indicated the purpose of the Act. The Employer members had gained the clear impression that the Government was endeavouring to obtain complete control over the private economy, in violation of the general principles of a free market economy and free collective bargaining.

In conclusion, they said that it was essential for the Government to submit a full new report on the current situation as soon as possible. They added that a direct contacts mission would be useful in finding solutions to the existing problems, since several doubts remained concerning the compatibility of the new legislation with the Convention.

The Worker member of Zimbabwe recalled that the previous year his Government had been requested to transmit the Labour Relations Amendment Bill to the Committee of Experts for its comments to see if the amendments proposed had eliminated all the remaining obstacles to the right to free collective bargaining in law and in practice. Although the Bill had finally been adopted in December 2002, it was disturbing that there remained provisions which empowered the Minister to refuse to register a duly concluded agreement and to force the parties to renegotiate if he deemed it fit. This had occurred in practice when the Minister had refused to recognize an agreement duly concluded by the Employers' Organization for Farmers and the General Agriculture and Plantation Workers' Union. It appeared likely that this section would continue to be used by the Government.

With regard to protection against acts of interference and the scope of application of the Convention, the Government had been requested 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. He deeply regretted that the Government had deliberately decided to ignore this recommendation and had instead embarked on a path of intimidation, demonization and the crippling of the ZCTU. He emphasized that protection against acts of interference should not only be binding upon employers and trade unions, but that Governments should also refrain from interfering in the activities of the social partners. He therefore regretted to report that the ZCTU had suffered a series of abuses of human and trade union rights. Workers had been arrested, beaten and tortured and militias had been trained to create no-go areas for trade unions. Among the many victims, the General Secretary of the ZCTU had been arrested and beaten by the police. Information on the various acts of violence committed had been included in a database which was available for public examination. The interference by the Government had had the effect of curtailing the major functions and even the existence of the ZCTU and the task of organizing of trade unions in Zimbabwe had become a dangerous and risky occupation. Pressure was being placed on workers to join the ZCTU, which was being promoted by the Government as the only central trade union organization with which it wished to deal. When independent trade union leaders were arrested, they were normally charged with treason and were therefore liable for the death penalty. Nevertheless, in an effort to stabilize the environment in his country, the ZFTV had persuaded the Government to engage in a tripartite negotiating forum, which it had accepted in December 2002. Unfortunately, it had only accepted this tripartite process for its own advantage. The purpose of the process had been to develop a prices and wages stabilization protocol as a basis for a focused economic strategy. However, the process had been undermined when the Government had unilaterally increased fuel prices by over 250 per cent. He therefore appealed for the Committee to examine closely the manner in which the Government continued to violate the fundamental rights set out in the Convention.

The Employer member of Zimbabwe noted with pleasure the progress made in compliance with the Convention over the past 12 months. He indicated that the employers in Zimbabwe had contributed to the process leading up to the adoption of the legislative amendments adopted by organizing the maximum level of participation of employers in the process of labour reform. Although satisfied that there was adequate tripartite involvement in the development of the new provisions, employers in Zimbabwe felt that the amendments were more pro-worker than the original Act. They believed that this was at the expense of potential new investment in the country and that the alliance which appeared to be emerging between the Government and the workers' movement had resulted in a significant increase in the costs of doing business in the country through higher social benefit costs.

He indicated that the social partners had agreed, through the Tripartite Negotiating Forum, on an overall prices and incomes stabilization framework within which collective bargaining agreements for 2003 could be situated. Within the scheduled deadline of June 2003, all the collective agreements had been successfully concluded and no interference had been reported. He noted in this respect that the national employment councils were free to negotiate their own agreements, which were then registered under the law, and that in only one case had registration been withheld by the Government up to now. However, he noted that no dispute had been reported in this connection and that the employers in Zimbabwe were satisfied that market forces were effectively at work. In the sector concerned, namely agriculture, they noted that the fundamental structural changes had materially affected the employer base in the industry and that new employers therefore needed to become involved so as to develop an informed agreement. He added that, as requested by the Committee, the issue of the protection of workers' organizations against acts of interference by employers' organizations, and vice versa, had been addressed by Statutory Instrument No. 131/2003.

With regard to the imposition of compulsory arbitration in the context of collective bargaining, he expressed the belief that the amendment to sections 106 and 107 had simplified procedures. This was good for business, which required a predictable operating environment, which had sometimes suffered from the propensity of workers to resort to unprocedural industrial action. The new measure of direct referral to the courts, instead of labour officers, would make the process more expeditive. Furthermore, the innovative distinction of disputes into two categories, namely those respecting rights and those relating to interests, would be helpful in isolating remedies where parties engaged in essential services were in dispute, while leaving the normal procedures set out in collective bargaining agreements unaffected.

With regard to other limitations on the right to collective bargaining, he expressed concern about the powers vested in the Minister to set maximum wages. While appreciating the need to narrow income disparities, he believed that the market should be the standard upon which wages and salaries were determined. If such powers were exercised in an arbitrary manner by the Minister, in addition to being in contravention of the Convention, this would be detrimental to the proper functioning of the labour market. However, he noted that although the provision had been in existence since 1985, it had never been applied by the Government. Even though the Committee might believe that this provision was in violation of the Convention, he preferred to take a more pragmatic approach based on historical practice, while at the same time endeavouring to convince the other social partners that it was unnecessary and should therefore be removed from the statutes. The role of Government should be merely to register, and not to approve collective bargaining agreements, which should be left to the two parties. In conclusion, he reaffirmed that the new law, although it could clearly be improved, was substantially in compliance with the Convention.

The Government member of the Seychelles said that it appeared that the Government of Zimbabwe was committed to bringing its legislation into line with the Convention and emphasized that it should be assisted and encouraged in this process. The Government's desire to cooperate had resulted the previous year in the adoption of the Labour Relations Amendment Bill. Recalling that in Africa and other developing countries, the people were still walking the walk to freedom, he emphasized that what was important was that they were more committed than ever to improving the lives of working men and women. The focus was the achievement of sustainable development through good industrial relations and he trusted that Zimbabwe subscribed to this principle.

The Government member of Mozambique welcomed the great commitment shown by the Government of Zimbabwe. He believed that recent amendments to the Labour Relations Act, adopted with the assistance of the ILO, was proof of that commitment. He emphasized the need for all forces of good will to help Zimbabwe. The social partners had to unite in order to participate in the application of standards and the ILO should continue its efforts to achieve this goal.

The Government member of Malawi expressed the opinion that, in view of the information provided by the Government of Zimbabwe, it was not necessary for the Conference Committee to examine this case. The Government was doing its best to cooperate and comply within the shortest possible time with the recommendations made by the Committee the previous year and it was an old legal tradition that a fair court did not punish a person twice for the same offence. The Conference Committee was renowned for its high integrity and fairness and should take care not to lose these traditional qualities. In view of the good will shown by the Government, it was therefore, now, the time more than ever before, to encourage it to continue its progress with ILO assistance and in collaboration with workers, employers and other interested parties.

The Government member of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya after recalling that Convention No. 98 was a fundamental Convention, welcomed the new information provided by the Government, and particularly the adoption of legislative amendments following consultations with all the parties concerned. It appeared that the amendments took fully into account the principles of the Convention. All of the new information provided should be forwarded to the Committee of Experts for review. Finally, he said that the provision of technical assistance on a tripartite basis would be an excellent means of helping the country make further progress.

The Employer member of South Africa recalled that the previous year Zimbabwe had been found by the Committee to be in breach of Convention No. 98, but that the Government of Zimbabwe had not agreed to accept a direct contacts mission to help improve the situation. Nevertheless, the country was receiving assistance under the ILO/Swiss project on social dialogue and dispute settlement in southern Africa. The social partners had contributed through the Tripartite Negotiating Forum to the development of legislation which had reduced the areas that were in conflict with the Convention. But this process had left unattended significant problems commented upon by the Committee of Experts. One of these concerned the authority given to the Minister to fix maximum wages, after consultation with the Minister of Finance. Employers were required to comply with the wage levels established, under threat of a fine or imprisonment of up to one year. The law also required the approval of collective agreements by the Minister in order to ensure that their provisions were in accordance with national laws and were not inequitable to consumers, members of the public or any other party to the agreement. The Minister could direct the parties to amend such agreements. If they did not do so, the Minister was empowered to amend the agreement directly as necessitated by the national interest.

He recalled that international Conventions existed to create a better life for the population. Although the Government endeavoured to justify its position on the grounds of national interest, he recalled that recent years had seen a major decline in the economy of Zimbabwe, with rampant inflation and a rapid fall in real GDP. Clearly its policies were not working and economic activity was in sharp decline. The present Committee could be of great assistance to the people of Zimbabwe in this regard by calling upon the Government to adopt sound policies based on tripartite agreement. The case should be examined by the Committee once again next year to ensure that the necessary changes had been made.

The Worker member of Nigeria stated that, despite the recent steps taken by the Government and the discussion which had taken place in this Committee the previous year, the amended law continued to contain elements that were in breach of the Convention. In particular, the Government still had the power to prescribe maximum wages and the new Act gave the Minister veto power, by allowing him to refuse to recognize a collective agreement freely and duly negotiated and signed by the social partners. He therefore expressed the view that the achievement of progress should not be assumed just because of the enactment of a law when this law continued to be in violation of the Convention. On the contrary, the fact that the Government maintained such violations in disregard of previous criticisms showed that it did not have any real intention of changing its practices. The Government representative had made an attempt to justify the continuing restrictions placed on collective bargaining and to lecture the Committee on the reasons why the Government should maintain control over the economy. He rejected this approach, which assumed that the Government had exclusive competence over economic matters and was in possession of the monopoly of knowledge, and that no benefit could be drawn from the participation of the social partners in the economic life of the country. This stance explained the country's current socio-economic crisis. National economic conditions could not be invoked to justify violations of Article 4 of the Convention. The Convention applied to all countries regardless of their level of development and its provisions were not based on the condition that only flourishing economies should be under an obligation to respect them. He associated himself with the statement by the Worker member of Zimbabwe, who had explained how the Government had rendered the exercise of freedom of association impossible by criminalizing trade unionists for organizing, engaging in collective bargaining and staging strikes. In particular, the police were allowed to stop trade union meetings and armed thugs were used to attack and assault trade union leaders. Foreign trade unionists were not spared such intimidation. The Director of the Commonwealth Trade Union Congress had visited the country at the invitation of the workers and the Ministry of Labour and had almost been deported without having committed any offence. The next day, a trade unionist working on child labour had been denied entry into the country. The right to collective bargaining could not flourish under such conditions. He urged the Conference Committee to send a clear signal to the Government that trade union freedoms and the right to collective bargaining should be fully respected in accordance with the Convention.

The Worker member of Norway, speaking on behalf of the Worker members of the Nordic countries, noted that the Government had now provided its reply to the observations made by the Committee of Experts and had adopted amendments to the Labour Relations Act. The amended Act seemed to be more in compliance with the Convention than the former labour laws, although some serious limitations remained, especially concerning the right to strike. She emphasized that the reason why the workers were not applauding this new law, although conditions for trade unionists might now look better on paper than they did a year ago, was that there had not been any signs that the law was being implemented in practice. Instead, there had been too many violations of workers' and other civilians' rights over the past year: trade unionists were prevented from holding ordinary meetings and organizing activities; strikes and rallies were forbidden by the authorities; union leaders were being arrested, intimidated and tortured; and trade union colleagues from other countries were being denied entry to the country in many instances. She emphasized that the core of the matter was the lack of any correspondence between, on the one hand, the content of ratified ILO Conventions and labour laws and, on the other, actual practice. The numerous incidents referred to during the discussion had demonstrated that the new labour law and the Convention were not being implemented in practice. One of the reasons for this was the adoption of the draconian Public Order and Security Act, which sidelined international conventions, as well as the new labour law and had been actively used to obstruct trade union activities and to allow the harassment, intimidation and even murder of workers. She observed the paradox which existed between the fact that Zimbabwe now had better legislation than before, while at the same time workers' rights were being violated more than ever before in the history of the country. This case clearly illustrated the large gap which existed between the adoption of laws and the ratification of Conventions and their implementation in practice. She emphasized that what really mattered was the way in which workers and their families were treated. The practices followed in Zimbabwe today were intolerable and certainly not in compliance with the Convention. Nordic workers were following this situation very closely and welcomed the fact that the Government had expressed its belief in tripartism and social dialogue. But experience showed that good dialogue could only take place in an appropriate context, with mutual respect for the views of each party. This was unfortunately not the situation in Zimbabwe today. She therefore requested that the conclusions on this case be included in a special paragraph of the Committee's report.

The Worker member of Brazil expressed her interest in the information provided and efforts made by the Government of Zimbabwe. She indicated that this country had been a victim of colonialism and apartheid for decades, and that no one had spoken of freedom of association and collective bargaining for all those years. She expressed her surprise that at a time when the Government had started to require the implementation of the agreement on the distribution of land signed 20 years ago, allegations had started to be made of non-compliance with the Convention. She emphasized that Zimbabwe and most of Africa wished to overcome their difficult economic situation, and that it was necessary to offer them support and solidarity. If this Committee and the ILO continued to discriminate against the poor and independent countries, they would have to denounce many of the ILO's Conventions, which would be regrettable.

The Government member of Cuba indicated that the comments of the Committee of Experts related to the draft of amendments to the Labour Relations Act which, according to the statement by the Government representative, had already been adopted by Parliament in December 2002, after the meeting of the Committee of Experts, and contained a number of changes related to the application of Convention No. 98. She also noted that special regulations related to the application of Article 2 of the Convention had been adopted, which was also related in a number of ways to the application of the Labour Relations Act. She indicated that this was a complex subject and that it was premature to make a judgement on the oral information received recently. The legal analysis of the new legislative provisions and their conformity with the Convention lay within the competence of the Committee of Experts, and the Conference Committee should therefore confine itself to taking note of the Government's explanations and transmitting the information to the Committee of Experts. She stated that it was unacceptable to include matters in the debates which had not been addressed in the report of the Committee of Experts and that certain members exerted pressure and threats against governments to make them accept what was proposed. It would be more fruitful if the Committee took note and expressed its gratitude for the information provided by the Government, and she asked the Committee to transmit the information and the new texts to the Committee of Experts so that they could be examined. Finally, she indicated that the technical assistance of the ILO could be beneficial for the Government and the social partners.

The Government member of Namibia stated that after reading the Government's report to the Committee of Experts and listening to the explanations provided to the Conference Committee, his delegation had three points to make. First, he observed that the concerns expressed by the Committee of Experts had been addressed through the adoption of the Labour Relations Amendment Bill in December 2002. The legislative text had since been communicated to the Committee of Experts. Second, he took note of the fact that the Government representative had expressed the wish for the Committee of Experts to be given the opportunity to examine the new legislation before any conclusions could be drawn. Third, he noted that a legislative reform process was under way with the participation of all the social partners and with technical assistance from the ILO in the framework of the ILO/Swiss project on social dialogue and dispute settlement in southern Africa. He therefore concluded that this Committee should allow sufficient time for the Committee of Experts to examine the legislation transmitted by the Government and assess whether it was in conformity with the Convention.

The Government member of Finland, also speaking on behalf of the Government members of Denmark, Iceland, Norway and Sweden, noted the information provided by the Government, both orally and in writing, on the adoption of the new Labour Relations Amendment Bill. She also noted that the conformity of this legislation with the requirements of the Convention still needed to be assessed by the Committee of Experts. She requested the Government to ensure that other legislative provisions which might affect the application of the Convention be amended accordingly so that the Convention could be fully implemented in practice. She therefore urged the Government to do its utmost to ensure that the fundamental rights enshrined in the Convention could be exercised in an environment that guaranteed peace, democracy, social justice, respect for human rights and the rule of law. She encouraged the Government to accept technical assistance from the ILO in order to promote the implementation of the Convention and to hold consultations with the social partners on measures needed for the achievement and maintenance of peace and social justice.

The Government representative thanked the members of the Committee for the debate which had taken place. He repeated that his Government had submitted information in writing on the measures taken since the last meeting of the Committee in response to the comments made by the Committee of Experts. The Government, in collaboration with the social partners and on the basis of social dialogue, had developed new legislation, which had been presented to the Committee of Experts. It was now up to the Committee of Experts to review the conformity of the new law with the Convention and pronounce itself on any remaining discrepancies. He emphasized that legislative reform had taken place with the support of ILO experts and the ILO/Swiss project, with a view to complying with ILO Conventions. He wished to place on record that his Government was still reviewing the matter and would comply with any observation which was in the interests of the social partners.

With regard to the issues raised by several members, he wished to emphasize that the Government had the will to govern the country and would continue to do so based on the electoral mandate it had received. However, he noted that the Government was being accused of violations by organizations based outside the country and which were intent on funding acts of violence in the country. However, such organizations did not take into account the victims of the illegal acts committed by those whom they sponsored. He expressed concern at the fact that, as soon as such persons were arrested for having committed illegal acts, they claimed the right to protection as trade unionists, even though their acts, such as the destruction of a public bus full of workers at 4 a.m., showed no respect for workers. Such persons nevertheless claimed that they should not be punished for such acts due to their trade union status. He emphasized that the rule of law should apply equally to all citizens, and especially to those who had committed illegal acts aimed at overthrowing a legitimately elected government. The Conference Committee was being subjected to misinformation in this respect. The Government took great care to distinguish genuine trade union activities from such illegal activities. His Government had respect for workers and acknowledged that they should not be victimized for carrying out genuine trade union activities.

He reported that the previous year, a high-level mission of trade unionists from African countries had visited the country, invited by workers' organizations, and had held a long meeting with the President. The mission had gone on to verify the situation on the ground. They had seen for themselves that the alleged violations were not true. He emphasized that Zimbabwe did not have the power in the international media to defend itself against the defamation being levelled at it. The situation in the country was very different from the one depicted to the outside world. The country was being penalized for attempting to take back its land from a former colonial power. At the same time, however, such countries were never criticized for refusing entry to persons coming from their former colonies. He emphasized that the international community should no longer allow such double standards to be maintained.

He expressed confidence that the Committee of Experts, as a principled body, would examine the conformity of the legislation submitted with regard to the provisions of the Convention. However, he believed that the real issue before the Committee was the need to allow a developing country to chart its own process of development in a tripartite manner. He recalled, in response to the suggestions made that a tripartite forum should be set up in the country, that a Tripartite Negotiating Forum had been established and had been functioning since 1998, leading in 2003 to the conclusion of agreements with the social partners, which were implemented at the national and workplace levels. In reference to the work of the Parliament Portfolio Committee on Labour, he noted that this Committee had been heavily involved in the labour reform process since 2000. This Committee had received written submissions from the social partners and civil society and had convened a public hearing on the draft labour legislation. The recently adopted Act had therefore been the subject of public debate on the basis of the comments made by the Committee of Experts and with the participation of the social partners and civil society. He added that labour law reform was a continuous process. Any comments made by the Committee of Experts, after it had examined the new legislation, could therefore be taken on board by the Portfolio Committee.

The Worker members requested the Government as a matter of urgency to provide the information requested by the Committee of Experts in its annual report. Noting the Government's lack of good will and its refusal to accept a direct contacts mission, they asked for the conclusions of the Committee on this case to be placed in a special paragraph of its report.

The Employer members associated themselves with the statement made by the Worker members.

The Government representative emphasized that cooperation at the political level with a view to addressing the problems faced by his country was under way with the participation of such eminent persons as the Presidents of Nigeria, South Africa and Malawi. He therefore expressed the view that those who were trying to participate in the political process in his country were failing to respect the fact that African countries were capable of resolving their problems on their own. Moreover, the ILO technical cooperation project funded by Switzerland constituted a sufficient basis for making progress, whereas a direct contacts mission would be more political in nature and its aims were already covered by the presidential cooperation to which he had already referred.

The Committee took note of the written information submitted by the Government, the oral statement made by the Government representative and the ensuing discussion. The Committee noted once again that the comments of the Committee of Experts dealt with problems relating to the application of Article 2 (protection against acts of interference), Article 4 (promotion of collective bargaining) and Article 6 (scope of application) of the Convention.

The Committee noted the Government's statement that in the context of the ongoing reform of the labour legislation, the amendments to the Labour Relations Act adopted on 7 March 2003 and that the statutory instrument on the protection of workers' organizations against acts of interference by employers' organizations and vice versa had been adopted in 2003. Noting that the Committee of Experts had made certain comments on the provisions of the draft amendments transmitted with the Government's report, the Committee considered that it would be appropriate for the Committee of Experts to examine the conformity of the amended legislation with the provisions of the Convention.

The Committee nevertheless noted with concern the allegations made concerning the persistent violations of the Convention in law and in practice. The Committee expressed firm hope that in the very near future the necessary measures would be adopted to guarantee that the rights set out in the Convention were effectively applied to all workers and employers, and to their organizations. The Committee requested the Government to provide detailed information in this regard in its next report so that it could be examined by the Committee of Experts.

The Committee noted that the Government was willing to accept technical assistance and requested it to accept a direct contacts mission to examine the whole situation in situ and to inform the Committee of Experts on legislative developments and on the outstanding issues. The Committee decided to include its conclusions on this case in a special paragraph of its report.

The Government representative emphasized that cooperation at the political level with a view to addressing the problems faced by his country was under way with the participation of such eminent persons as the Presidents of Nigeria, South Africa and Malawi. He therefore expressed the view that those who were trying to participate in the political process in his country were failing to respect the fact that African countries were capable of resolving their problems on their own. Moreover, the ILO technical cooperation project funded by Switzerland constituted a sufficient basis for making progress, whereas a direct contacts mission would be more political in nature and its aims were already covered by the presidential cooperation to which he had already referred.