ADVANCED LABOUR RELATIONS AND COLLECTIVE BARGAINGING NOTES

Labour relations as a concept embraces all aspects of employment relations between

the employer and the employees in an organizational setting.

Labour relations is the study and practice of managing unionized employment

situations.
‘The study of the institutions of job regulation’ (Flanders 1965 in Edwards)
The collective aspects of relationships between the workforce and management.
Blyton & Turnbull (1994)

It relates to contractual relationship between the employer and the employees,

regulation of conditions of service, collective bargaining, management of strikes,
industrial democracy, trade unions-employer relations, and structural decisions by the
employer on how to relate well with individual workers and their trade unions in the
workplace.

It concerns the process of work

Basis for employment relationship

Labour relations is restricted to the relationships of employers and employees- not all
types of work
Understanding by an employee to provide skill and effort to the employer in return for
which the employer provides an employee a wage (pay – work bargaining)
NB
Labour laws in Zimbabwe do not cover all types of work for example, consultancy work-
form of payment is different or independent contractors, women-domestic work,
community service, court sentence(criminal),voluntary work, family work-children.The
Labour Act does not cover the informal sector. It relates to paid work in the formal
sector.It covers a minority of workers in Zimbabwe where the majority of people are in
the informal sector

Dynamics in labour relations

Centerpiece ofLabour relationship between employers and employees.

 This relationship has both common and divergent interests

 Cooperation is key since employees will get conditions they like and employers
get productivity.
 Employer wants to buy labour at the lowest possible cost whilst labour wants to
sell their labour at the highest possible price.
 Employees are relatively weaker than employers so they have more power when
they organise themselves into unions.
  Tendency to look at the two parties employees and employers as the only parties
to employee relations. This is simplistic, however there is a third more powerful
force “government intervention”

Factors influencing employee relations

A variety of internal and external factors which include growth in trade unionism,
changing product and employment market conditions, labour law and new technology:
(Marchington& Wilkinson, 2004). Endogenous factors such as culture of the
organization, prevailing management style, the organisation’s value, day to day
interactions between managers and employees and HR policies and practices in the
business.

ACTORS IN LABOUR RELATIONS

There are 3 main actors in labour relations: employees and their organisations,
employers and their organisations and the state.
Employees and their Trade unions
Trade unions represent the interests of their members.The trade union function has 5
distinctive features which are power, job regulation, economic regulation, social change
and self fulfilment.
Power
It provides a countervailing force to the employer. There is a lot of strength in numbers
as an individual employee cannot coerce either the employer or state to change a
certain policy that impinges on him or her.
Job Regulation

Employer - employee relationship creates rules and regulations to maintain harmonious

relations and prevent arbitrary management actions. Rules are both substantive and
procedural.Without unions employees would be at the mercy of their employer asrules,
regulations and procedures which govern employment relationship would be designed
without their input.There would be no consultations on recruitment and selection,
appointment, training, development,salaries and wage, allowances, work load work
design among other things. But if unions are present joint regulation would be there.

Economic regulation

Trade unions influence the rise of wages and employment of their members within the
framework of the wage/work contract of employment. This explains why employers are
not comfortable with unions which they associate with machinery for pushing wages
higher.

Social change

Trade unions do express the social cohesion and aspirations or political ideology of their
membership and seek to develop a society which reflects this view. For example, apart
from talking issues related to wages and conditions of employment, trade unions might
wish to advocate for a total transformation of society in terms of demands for gender
balance at work, security policies for retired citizens, pensions and gratuity, etc

Self –fulfilment

This allows for individuals to develop outside the immediate confines of their jobs and
participate in the decision making process. Self fulfilment is not easy to achieve
especially for the lower ranks of the organizational hierarchy. However, they may reach
this level through trade unionism. It creates a very powerful feeling of contentedness to
realise that he/she enjoys a greater degree of obedience from fellow workers.

What employees want from work?

 Opportunity to use their initiative allowing problem solving and creativity
 Job Security
 Working with friendly and supportive people and having a good relationship with
their superior
 Good pay and satisfactory physical working conditions

.
The Role of the Employer in Labour Relations
The employer has a major role to play in labour relations since the buck ends at the
doorstep of the organization. In essence, the role of the employer revolves around the
organization in terms of the structures it puts in place to ensure effective operational
activities.
The role of the employer involves the following areas:
1. Establishing appropriate structures to ensure industrial harmony;
2. Ensuring harmonious relationship between the organization and the individual
workers;
3. Recognition of the trade unions to operate in the organization;
4. Ensuring harmonious relationship between the organization, workers committee and
the trade unions in the organization;
5. Providing appropriate and conducive environment for collective bargaining to thrive in
the organization; and
6. Taking cognizance of existing laws on labour relations in labour matters

Government Intervention in Labour Relations

The government in our society is both an employer and an umpire in labour relations
matters. Therefore, besides the fact that the government employs a sizeable number of
labour, it also intervenes in the operations of almost all aspects of labour relations
towards ensuring healthy relationship between the other employers and the various
categories of workers in the country.
The specific areas of government intervention in labour relations are asfollows:
1. Regulates the legal framework, setting rules and regulations for the practice of labour
relations in the country, for example Labour Act Cap 28:01;
2. Making representation in roundtable discussion between the employers and the trade
unions;
3. Playing mediating role in resolution of industrial conflicts through conciliation and
arbitration,
4. Encouraging the use of collective bargaining in terms of conditions of service; and
5. Ensuring the protection of the workers’ rights and privileges in the workplace.
6. It plays the role of a model employer especially in developing countries where the
state is the biggest employer through civil service and state controlled enterprises.
7. It regulates incomes through macro-economic management to achieve high
employment and productivity and to attract investment, maintain low levels of inflation
and avoid over-expenditure.
The government intervenes in labour relations matters because it has the responsibility
to ensure that there is industrial harmony in the country. Furthermore, the government
also has the responsibility to entrench protective legislations to regulate all aspects of
the work situation in order to guard against the exploitation of the workers by
theiremployers.
-The state intervenes in employer-employee relations to ensure the following;
1. Work is not disturbed,
2. employers dominate,
3. Labour law institutionalize labour conflicts,
4. labour law coopts ‘sweetheart’ unions and smash and repress those who operate
outside capitalist parameters e.g.labour Act sect 109(6) union leaders who
engage in illegal strike

PERSPECTIVES IN LABOUR RELATIONS

There are 3 major theories relating to the employment relationship. These areunitarism,
pluralism and Marxism. Each attempts toexplain the workplace in relation to conflict and
harmony, employer prerogative and the role of trade unions differently.
UNITARISM
Work organization is viewed as an integrated and harmonious whole existing for
common objectives, values, interests and a single centre of loyalty and authority. There
is no space for opposition in the workplace. Management single handedly control the
running of the organization. Strong belief in individualism.Conflict is unwanted,
unnatural and dysfunctional and is viewed as pathological and work of agitators. It is
seen as caused by either lack of communication or the hand of enemies (agitators).
Manager would employ his/her power, dismissal, disciplinary procedures or transfer of
trouble makers to other departments to stem conflict. Employee has a duty of
subordination and loyalty.Employment relationship is individualized.Trade unions are
not wanted as they challenge the status quo and where they exist they are used as
instruments of communication with workers for the achievement of industrial harmony.
There is authoritarian style of management and workers do not participate in decision-
making as this is not in sync with managerial prerogative. There is a sense of mutuality
of interest so whatever decision is made by management must be good for the
employee.
PLURALISM
The workplace is viewed as a microcosm of society replete with heterogeneity in social
groups, social interest, values and beliefs that generate conflict. So conflict is inherent
as the actors have divergent interests and objectives. For example, employees are
interested in higher wages, safe working environment, increased leisure, autonomy,
flexibility while employers are interested in making profits through exploitation of
labour.Thus, conflict is inevitable in today’s organisations but it needs to be controlled
with effective industrial relations strategies as it can be disruptive. Conflict between
employers and employees is accepted to be natural but there is compromise from both
sides in their interests so that the organization survives. Trade unions are perceived as
legitimate to protect employees’ interests within the framework of rules provided by the
state and collective bargaining is used as a tool to resolve disputes at the work place.
There is industrial democracy as employees are given a voice on decisions that affect
them.The employer uses staff meetings, quality circles, and works councils to articulate
conflicting interests of employees to ensure superior organizational performance.
Employees’ right to strike and employer’s right to lock out provides an equilibrium
(power balance).Both parties have to use power with restraint for the relationship to be
stable(not to have perennial winners/losers all the time as there can also be winners
and losers in the negotiation process(not balance all the time)).
MARXISM
It views employer-employee relationships in the wider capitalist society which is
believed to be exploitative. Industrial relations is analysed as a subsystem of a larger
society that shapes conflicting relations between capital and labour. Industrial relations
is about who owns what, where and how.There are two main classes of those who own
the means of production and those who do not. The capitalists are mainly interested in
amassing super profits and regard labour as a factor of production to be exploited like
other tangible resources. For as long as there is unequal distribution of the means of
production conflict will never end. Industrial conflict is seen as a reflection of not just
organizational demands and tensions but also the inherent nature of the capitalist
economic and social system. Thus, conflict cannot be resolved within the framework of
capitalism but can only be ended with the overthrow of the capitalist mode of production
and its substitution by the socialist mode of production as class struggle between the
working class and capitalists escalate and intensify. The source of conflict lies in that
labour power is turned into a commodity which is subject to the law of accumulation and
profit.The growth of trade unions is seen as an inevitable response to capitalism and the
need to protect their interests.Fox(1973) assets that trade unions are like a permanent
opposition, which does not seek to be an alternative management. Trade unions are
viewed as the basic defence of the working class that allow the workers through
collective bargaining to push capital to pay labour power at more or less its actual value.
Trade unions are rudimentary instruments of class struggle which due to the reserve
army of the unemployed will never have equivalent power to that of capital or employers
who own the money.The Marxist theory has no confidence in the role of trade unions to
represent employees as long as they cannot challenge capitalism. The creation of
institutions of joint regulation such as trade unions is seen as an enhancement of
managerial position vis a vis the workers, rather than its reduction(Dzimbiri, 2008). They
want a revolution.
DISCUSSION
What has been the history of Employee Relations in Zimbabwe since 1980?
Discuss

EMPLOYEE RELATIONS IN ZIMBABWE SINCE 1980

1980s regulation and legislation put in place to protect workers e.g.Employment Act,
Minimum Wages Act, Workers committee introduced, Labour relations Act in 1985.
Employers needed to comply

1990s No change in labour legislation however inefficiencies at Labour court and delays
caused some companies not to take seriously legislation – employee rights violated.
Market liberalization policies were embraced. Labour Relations Amendment No12 of
1992 and Export Processing Zones Act Cap 14:07 were passed to deregulate the
labour market and employer controlled codes of conduct were introduced. Contract or
casual jobs paying lower wages were introduced.The new millennium witnessed forced
compliance through firmand farm invasions.

2002 &2005 changes in legislation adding more rights to employees. The Labour
Relations Amendment Act No 17 of 2002 was passed and according to Gwisai (2006) it
was a transitional compromise law between neoliberalism, state corporatism and
pluralism reflecting the sharp political, ideological and class struggles of the period it
was made.

-The Act was replaced by the Labour Amendment Act No 7 0f 2005 which incorporated
Export Processing Zones employees, strengthened the Labour Court and the remedies
available on unfair dismissal and better maternity rights.

The Labour Act Cap 28:01 includes all amendments made by the Act up to the first of
Feb 2006 but has a number of weaknesses

1) There is need to strengthen the Labour Court

2) Harmonization of all labour laws and statutes

3) Restrictive provisions on the right to strike

4) Criminalization of the right to strike

5) Involvement of the minister in CBAs

6) Strengthening of workers organization

7) Dispute resolution is too long

8) Lack of job security and benefits for contract workers.

9) The employer also bemoans what it perceives as excessive leave provisions in the
Labour Act .The Act entitles employees to 180 days sick leave, 30 days’ vacation leave,
12 days special leave and 98 days maternity leave. The argument is that an employee
can be on paid leave for 320 days of the 365 days in a calendar year!

THE CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT

-A contract is a binding agreement between 2 parties, can either be written, implied or

psychological.

An agreement between an employer and an employee at the time the employee is

hired that outlines the exact nature of their business relationship, specifically what
compensation the employee will receive in exchange for specific work performed.
It is an oral or written, express or implied agreement specifying terms and conditions
under which a person consents to perform certain duties as directed and controlled by
an employer in return for an agreed upon wage or salary.

-According to Madhuku and Manase (1995) a contract is an agreement between 2

parties which is recognized or enforceable by law. The contract of employment is the
cornerstone of the employment relationship. It outlines many of the rights and
obligations of the employment relationship. Further, it provides the basis on which the
structure of statutory protection is built. Statutory protections provide a floor of
employment rights. The employment relationship is founded upon contract of
employment so no one is properly regarded as an employee unless he or she is
employed under a contract of employment (otherwise known as a contract of service
and distinguished from a contract for service) Many employment rights (eg the right to
claim unfair dismissal and redundancy) are dependent upon the worker qualifying as an
employee

-According to Gwisai (2006) a contract of employment comes into existence when one
person, the employee, enters into an agreement with another, the employer, to render
personal services to, and under the control of the employer in return for remuneration.
Employment contracts are of 2 types; fixed term and indefinite.

Fixed term contracts

Parties clearly specify the duration of the contract, it endures for a specified period,
unless it is terminated earlier by agreement or by fundamental breach-The life of a
contract may be determined either by naming a date for termination or by stipulating a
particular event the occurrence of which will bring the contract to an end eg the
completion of a particular task
-If after the agreed date for the termination of the contract the employee remains in
service and the employer continues to pay the agreed remuneration, the contract is
deemed to have been tacitly renewed, provided that an intention to renew is consistent
with the parties’ contact. Types of temporary contracts include casual, seasonal work,
and probation

Indefinite contracts

-where the parties do not specify a date of termination, the contract then endures until it
is terminated by agreement, by the giving of the contractually stipulated or reasonable
notice of termination or until either party elects to terminate on fundamental breach by
the other or on retirement at the agreed age or on the other grounds accepted in law

NB

The nature of contract has an impact on benefits and dismissal law. Benefits such as
pensions and medical aid benefits, retrenchment packages of security of employment
are associated with permanent full time contracts of employment.

ROLE OF HR
HR department are custodians of the contract of employment.

HR Departments are the ones representing the company at the Labour Court if
employment contract is violated

Line management ensure that they provide the environment which enables the
employee’s rights not to be violated

The employment contract: Rights and Duties of employers and employees

Once a contract of employment has been entered into, whether in writing or verbally, it
is accepted that the parties have by implication agreed to certain rights and duties at
common law.The duties of the other constitute the rights of the other. For example, the
employee has the right to remuneration, to work, not to be demoted,not to work for any
other employer but his own while the employer has the right to expect that the employee
does his work to the best of his ability,that he obeys reasonable orders, that he is
honest and does not compete with the employer’s business.

The common law duties of the employer include the following-the duty to receive the
employee into his service, the duty to pay employee’s remuneration, to ensure that
working conditions are safe and healthy, the duty of good faith and to respect the
employee’s dignity.

The five principal duties of the employee in an employment contract under Common law
are to enter and provide service, to maintain reasonable efficiency, to further the
employer’s business interests, to be respectful and obedient and to refrain from
misconduct generally.

GROUP DISCUSSION

Examine key weaknesses, omissions and errors in crafting and administering contracts
in Zimbabwe

PSYCHOLOGICAL CONTRACT

“Set of unwritten reciprocal expectations between the individual employee and the
organisation” (Guest et al,2000)

“Represents mutual beliefs, perceptions, and informal obligations between an employer

and employee” Wikipedia Encyclopedia

Psychological contract is a metaphor that captures a wide variety of largely unwritten

expectations and understandings of the two parties about their mutual obligations
(Rousseau 1995).

A two way exchange of perceived promises and obligations

Guest and Conway (2002): “the perceptions of both parties to the employment
relationship – organisation and individual – of the reciprocal promises and obligations
implied in that relationship

Ineffective communication practices are more likely to create different beliefs about the
reciprocal promises and obligations.

Individual employees will have different perceptions of their psychological contract.

Concept started in 1960s recently become a fashionable framework within which to

study aspects of employee relationships

Organisations seek both flexibility and employee commitment and restructuring has
increased number of “nonstandard” forms of employment.

Notion of employee commitment emphasizes the importance of managing the

psychological contract (Rousseau, 1995)
This starts at interview stages ―some initial statements no matter how informal may
later be reminded as promises and give rise to expectations and disappointment if not
met
DISCUSSION
Assess the impact of the psychological contract on labour relations and how can HR
managers, manage expectations arising from the psychological contract effectively?

EMPLOYEE INVOLVEMENT AND PARTICIPATION

 Employee involvement is creating an environment in which people have an
impact on decisions and actions that affect their jobs.
 Employee involvement is a philosophy practiced by companies that gives their
employees stake in decisions that directly affect their jobs
 Employee involvement entails downward communication whose main purpose is
to inform employees including teambuilding, notice boards, departmental
meetings etc.
 Employee Involvement stops short of any degree of ‘power-sharing’ between
managers and employees in eventual decision-making and, as such, is regarded
as a relatively weak form of voice in that whilst it seeks to engage employees and
provide a channel for employee expression it preserves management’s right to
make decisions and generally provides for limited employee influence. Employee
Involvement is underpinned by the unitarist assumption that managers and
employees share common interests, and that management should retain
fundamental control of decision-making. Therefore, whilst often associated with
employee empowerment, EI does not represent a true redistribution of power in
the employment relationship as managers can retract this ‘empowerment’ if it no
longer serves its purpose. In practice, EI is often focused on the engagement of
small groups and individuals in addressing local, operational issues by facilitating
information-sharing within work groups and between line managers and
employees. Generally, EI does not extend to providing the opportunity for
workers to have any input into higher-level, strategic decision-making, such as
pay, working conditions or wider organisational policy. Mechanisms for employee
involvement are invariably ‘direct’ in that they do not involve employee
representatives. Examples of involvement mechanisms include suggestion
schemes, quality circles team working and self-managed workgroups.

Workers’ participation in management is an essential ingredient of Industrial

democracy. The concept of workers’ participation in management is based on Human
Relations approach to Management which brought about a new set of values to labour
and management. Traditionally the concept of Workers’ Participation in Management
(WPM) refers to participation of non-managerial employees in the decision-making
process of the organization. Workers’ participation is also known as ‘labour participation’
or ‘employee participation’ in management. In Germany it is known as co-determination
while in Yugoslavia it is known as self-management. The International Labour
Organization has been encouraging member nations to promote the scheme of
Workers’ Participation in Management.
 Definition: According to Keith Davis, participation refers to the mental and emotional
involvement of a person in a group situation which encourages him to contribute to
group goals and share the responsibility of achievement.
It is considered as a mechanism where workers have a say in the decision-making.
According to Walpole, Participation in Management gives the worker a sense of
importance, pride and accomplishment; it gives him the freedom of opportunity for self-
expression; a feeling of belongingness with the place of work and a sense of
workmanship and creativity.
A useful framework for analyzing the extent to which Employee Programmes
schemes generally allow employee participation
1) Degree of say that employees have about organizational decisions. A greater
degree is when employees can either in/directly influence those decisions that are
normally reserved for management or they are simply informed of management
decisions.
2) Level at which participation takes place – this can be at work group, department,
plant or corporate level eg organizational strategy
3) Scope of participation- topics on which employees can contribute. This ranges
from minor issues such as car parking space, to more substantive issues such as
future investments or plant relocation.
4) Form that participation takes- which may include downward communication,
upward problem solving designed to tap into employee knowledge and opinion, task
participation and team working in which employees are encouraged or expected to
extend the range and types of tasks undertaken at work eg job redesign, job
enrichment, team working and financial involvement.

Employee Participation is grounded in pluralism in that it implicitly acknowledges the

existence of a range of organisational stakeholders whose interests do not always
coincide.Employee Participation implies some degree of power-sharing and dilution of
the absolute ‘right to manage’ among employers and therefore associated practices are
often resisted by managers, particularly where it involves trade union representation
and where it is perceived to slow down the decision-making process. Participation can
be contrasted with involvement in that the mechanisms for participation often derive
from employees themselves rather than being managerially imposed and controlled. EP
results, therefore, not from managerial desire to improve individual and organisational
performance rather from a desire among employees to have greater influence over
decisions that directly or indirectly affect them. Finally, whereas involvement is typically
‘direct’, participation is often ‘indirect’, involving the use of (elected) employee
representatives to represent the interests of all employees. It, therefore, has more
collective connotations than many forms of involvement. Because participation is often
concerned with negotiation, conflict may occur between employees and management,
particularly where employees participate in higher-level decisions and differing interests
are most likely to be visible
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK OF WORKER PARTICIPATION AND
TRADEUNIONISM
Trade unionism is anchored in philosophical discourse, which relates to industrial
democracy. It is against this backdrop that in this course we examine the theory of trade
unionism. The idea is to examine theories on labour and trade unionism and the models
of worker participation grounded in vigorous empirical scholarship. This is in recognition
of the fact that worker organisations are not restricted to trade unions as they take a
variety of forms, particularly at the shop floor level. The concept of worker participation
also helps in involving a theory which explains why trade unions and workers
committees co-exist in Zimbabwe.
The concept of democracy
The concise dictionary (Allen 1990:308) defines “democracy” “as a system of
government by the whole population, through elected representatives”. Generally, it
may therefore be said that the term “democracy” refers to a situation in which a person
or a group of people has the right (and opportunity) to participate in making and
carrying out decisions which may affect them as a group or as individuals.
Western style democracy usually manifests itself in the economic and political spheres.
Consequently, we may also distinguish two specific applications of the concept
“democracy”, namely political democracy and industrial democracy.

The concept of political democracy

According to Nel (2002:210), political democracy is characterized by the following
phenomena:
• Majority rule and the opportunity for a minority group to become the majority by
means of peaceful and orderly procedures.
• Respect for certain basic minority rights, including individual freedom of thought
and expression.
• Due processes of law as well as equal treatment under the law.

“Political Democracy” refers specially to “government by the masses” rather than by one
or a few individual. Representatives are elected and these representatives make the
rules within a particular community. In Western democracies, individuals usually have
the right to vote for any political party which is recognized by the laws of the country.
Individuals also have certain rights and obligations in terms of legislation. Rights, for
example, refer to the individuals’ right to freedom of movement, right to make political
choices, and right to administration action which is lawful, reasonable and procedurally
fair. obligations are the observer side of rights and entail, for example, that individuals
should fulfill their roles in society in a lawful and orderly manner, should contribute to
the general welfare of society, should endeavor to play a constructive role in society,
should abide by the laws of the land and should live in accordance with the country’s
goals and policies.
Note, also, that political democracy arise from the underlying philosophy of individual
freedom and social equality. It is generally accepted that social and economic market
mechanism from the functional basis of a Western (political) democracy. Market
mechanism, in turn, imply freedom of choice and equal opportunities to share in
communal goals.

The concept of industrial democracy

“Industrial Democracy” refers primarily to control and decision making in organisations;

in other words, to labour relations systems in which the democratic rights of workers are
recognized, empowerment in the workplace is allowed and the employers and
employees are seen as partners (Pons & Deale 1998:4-3). Employees must be afforded
the opportunity for directly or indirectly participating in the management and decision
making process of the organization. And the development of industrial democracy must
be driven by labour legislation.
Derber (1969:180), as quoted in Nel (2002:213), describes the underlying basis of
industrial democracy as follows:
…a respect for the dignity of man which must not be arbitrarily disregarded in the
promotion of the interest of the total society.It requires an equal opportunity for
advancement to all men, regardless of race, or creed, religion, national origin, political
belief or any other personal characteristic apart from the requirements of the job. It calls
for certain minimum standards of life relating to wages, leisure, education, health, and
safety. And it involves general atmosphere or climate of opinion which minimizes class
differences, rejects the master-servant relationship and regards all means spiritually
equal, even though they may differ in intellectual; or physical abilities.

However Elliot (1988:4) as quoted in Nel (2002:213) sees industrial democracy as

follows:
Broadly, industrial democracy involves workers (normally through their trade unions)
claiming rights to have a greater say over matters affecting their work lives. This
involves the running of the country’s economic and industrial affairs which in turn
involves those who are in positions of authority handing over some of their power to
representatives of workers.

Salamon (1998:353-354) defines the concept “industrial democracy” as follows:

The determination by the whole labour force of the nature, methods and indeed purpose
of production. Its central objectives is the establishment of employee self management
within an organisation whose managerial function is vested in either the employees or
the state and whose managerial function is exercised ultimately through a group,
elected by the employees, which has the authority over all decisions of the
organisations including the allocation of “profits” between extra wages and
reinvestment.
It is therefore clear that industrial democracy is related to the role and status of workers
in community. Pons and Deale (1998:4-3) define industrial democracy as the extent to
which workers and their representatives influence the outcome of organizational
decisions. Here, two aspects are of importance, namely the extent of participation in
decision making (the number of decisions) and the importance/value which workers
attach to the specific decision.

Two important factors that have come to the fore in the above discussion are those of
participation and representation. Recognition of these factors is essential for the
creation of political and industrial democracy in a community.

Industrial Democracy-historical development

In conceptual terms, the notion of worker participation is premised on industrial
democracy.
Industrial democracy and its manifestations emerged following the industrial revolution
of 19th century Britain. The emergence and growth of trade unionism is very much
associated with the industrial revolution. Poole (1984) observes that the rise of
associations of labour to a position of considerable prominence in the institutional
structure of modern communities is linked to the industrial revolution of the 19th century,
workers agitated for improved working conditions in the factories. This was at the zenith
of industrialisation in Europe.
Though initially restricted in its application, the concept of democracy has increasingly
become associated with several areas of human endeavour including the world of work.
Cole (1981), a British sociologist, promoted the idea of extending political democracy to
industry. In this regard, he wrote that political democracy must be achieved through
democracy in the workshop.
The industrial revolution demonstrated that, though liberty might be regarded as a
universal right, it was not extended to those in factories to enjoy. This explains why
there was an agitation to introduce the notion of equality of opportunities in the exercise
of liberty in the world of employment, coupled with improved conditions of service in the
factories during the industrial revolution.
The basic notion underlying the concept of industrial democracy is that the workplace is
not solely an economic entity governed by the laws of the market rather; it is seen as a
microcosm of the wider society.
In a democracy, workers should have some say and voice in how that “small society”
that is so important to their well being is run. The right of workers to “participate” in the
workplace is equated to the right of citizens to “participate” in government (Chamberlain
and Kuhn, 1986).
The increasing popularity of the democratic idea owes a great deal to the fact that is
identified with a system of worker participation. This philosophical standpoint is
predicated on the idea that democracy can only survive if the entire population
participates and maintains its interest in public affairs. Without this participation,
democracy would be powerless to satisfy people’s aspirations and would be no more
than an empty shell.
Struggles for workers’ control and for the democratisation for workplaces were
witnessed in advanced industrial societies in both the capitalist and the former Socialist
bloc. The idea of industrial democracy was also associated with nationalist movements
during and after colonial struggles characteristic of many developing countries, such as
Zimbabwe.
Industrial democracy is anchored on the premise that those who are likely to be
substantially affected by decisions made by management or employers should be
involved in the making of these decisions.

The concept of worker participation

Anstey (1997:1) defines worker participation as a “process which recognizes the needs
and rights of employees -individually and collectively- to participate with management in
organizational decision-making process areas beyond those usually associated with
collective bargaining”.
Salamon (1998:149), on the other hand, defines participation as “philosophy or style or
organizational management which recognizes both the need and the right of
employees, individually or collectively, to be involved with management in areas of the
organization’s decision making beyond that normally covered by collective bargaining”,
and as “those initiatives by the state, unions and employees which promote the
collective rights of employees to be represented in organizational decision making.
In the Directory of Personnel and Human resource management (Bennet 1994:149),
participation is defined as employee involvement in management decision making. This
can occur individually or collectively through employee representation.

Nel(2001:215)defines participation as the involvement of one group of employees (not

managers) in the decision making processes of the organisations which were
traditionally the responsibility and prerogative of another group of employees
(managers).

Bendix (2001:655-656) describes workers participation as “ the involvement of the

employee in the organizations, and planning of the work process, in the establishment
of procedures and future processes, in the decision- making function at various levels
and in the management and policy making bodies of the undertaking”. She also clearly
states that participation can assume different forms, from disclosure of information and
consultation to joint decision making and shared ownership, with goal or participation
being exclusively the realization of industrial democracy in the workplace.
Nel, Erasmus and Swanepol (1998:83) describe worker participation as a process by
means of which participate in and influence traditional management decisions which
may affect their work circumstances.
Paterman (1970), as quoted in Salaman(1998:354) maintains that “true” participation
requires that both parties have equal power to determine the outcome of decisions.

Swanepoel(2001:676) regards worker participation as those attempts on the part of the

management to give workers the opportunity to become involved with, or to participate
in, the decision making processes which are related to their daily activities as well as to
the functioning of the organization as a whole. Worker participation thus refers to any
process by means of which the relationship of power in the organisations are changed
directly or indirectly outside the confines of the traditional form of power sharing by way
of collective bargaining. Some methods of ensuring better communication in an
organization, such as meetings and committees, may thus also be regarded as forms of
worker participation.
Worker participation thus mainly entails those processes by means of which non-
managerial employees are afforded the opportunity of participating in (and feeling part
of ) decision making and of exerting a significant influence on decision making areas
which, traditionally, were regarded as the “employer’s prerogative”. Consequently,
management will, to some extent have to give up some of its power and resort to more
participatory management styles and methods.

Overview of participation and democracy

The realization of democracy in the economic environment means that all workers must,
directly or indirectly be given the opportunity of participating in the management, and
thus the decision making, of the organisations. However, democracy is usually seen as
comprising only direct participation in these processes.
According to Nel (2002:214) ,industrial democracy is important to workers because it
results in an increased share in the control of the organization, in the economy and in
the community as a whole. In addition, for reasons, management also start becoming
more positive about industrial democracy, seeing it as a way of promoting the more
effective operation of the organisations.

Essentially, participation means that workers who work under the supervision of others,
as well as all those workers affected by the activities of a particular organization, should
have a say in the decisions regarding these activities.
The following goals of worker participation can be identified:
• The ethical goal, which is concerned with the personal growth of the worker.
• The political goal, which is aimed at extending the individuals’ civil rights in the
organization-an aim which is in line with the concept “democracy”.
• The social goal, which is concerned with the promotion of healthy relationships in
the organization, which will have a beneficial effect on the organization as well as on the
community.
• The economic goal, which is aimed at the promotion of productivity and
profitability.
According to Pons and Deale (1998:4-8-to4-9), there are two reasons in particular why
organizations should establish structures which promote worker participation in decision
making. The first is the need to be internationally competitive, and the second is the
achievement of credibility in the context of social, economic and political change. Both
these needs involve significant challenges in a country where productivity is particularly
low and where the level of skills necessary to increase productivity is rapidly declining.
Both these needs should be addressed simultaneously. The only way in which this can
be done is through a shared vision and common goals. Management, trade unions and
workers must understand and support these visions and such goals.

Elements of participation
According to Nel (2002:215-216) participation consists primarily of three interrelated
elements which may manifest themselves in organizational decision making processes
in a number of ways. If one of these elements is absent, workers will be unable to
participate in organizational decision making. The extent to which influence, interaction
and information sharing occurs will also determine the level of participation.

Degrees of power sharing in participation

According to Nel (2002:216), participation will always entail measure of power sharing.
Briefly, power maybe defined as the ability on the part of some to get something done in
a particular way and or through certain other people. Legitimate power refers to that
“power” which a person has purely on the basis of the position which he or she holds.
When workers (non-managers) are involved in the decision making of managers, they
share the decision making power. Earlier, this power was linked to the position
concerned, and therefore only the manager had power.

Worker Participation Theories

Conceptually, worker participation embraces the idea of industrial democracy and seeks
to apply in the field of employment and labour the principles of the involvement of
workers’ organisations in the affairs of enterprises. In practical terms such involvement
should not be restricted to issues of remuneration and conditions of employment. It
should also include joint decision making in respect of these matters which are
ordinarily believed to be within the realm of management, such as investments or
expansion considerations.
It is by no means easy to single out one perspective, of worker participation, which
receives widespread support amongst industrial relations scholars and practitioners and
yet is sufficiently broad in scope to include all aspects, which merit analytical attention.
In this respect, the following perspectives are to be considered:
 Moral and ethical perspective utopian-socialist perspective
 Marxist perspective
 Liberal collectivism perspective
  Corporatist perspective
 Pluralist perspective
Worker participation theories or models are based on the assumption that human
beings tend to develop a strong desire to exercise control over their own lives and by
the same token to reject attempts by other human beings to restrict freedom.
Consequently, the issue of worker participation is of increasing contemporary concern.

Worker participation perspectives

Moral and ethical perspective
As industrial societies were taking shape during the industrial revolution of the 19th
century, writers of a religious persuasion joined the broad worker participation discourse
from a moral and ethical perspective.
The moral or ethical theories of worker organisations are premised on the assumption
that worker organisations of the industrial revolution. Poole (1981) argues that these are
products of revolutionary developments in the wider vulture of which and emerging
opposition to the patent injustices and poverty of the period was an obvious
manifestation. This perspective focused on a number of factors which were seen as
critical to the formation of the British trade unions.
Roper (1942) in Flanders (1970:15) emphasizes the importance of the value of justice
as a driving force of trade unionism when he asserts that:
Such values too, were articulated earlier on by Durkheim (1947) who highlighted the
importance of equity and justice to the proper and effective functioning of society.

In analysing the role of religion in the formation or worker organisations Perlman (1947)
argues that in the 19th century, the Christian socialists expounded a belief in the
brotherhood of man which was perceived as vital to the formation of worker
organisations.
Halevy (1971) argues that Methodism played an important role in shaping unionism. He
also contends that peaceful transition from an agricultural to an industrial society was
largely due to the effects of Methodism tempering with the revolutionary aspirations.
Other writers however, do not subscribe to the notion that Methodism played a decisive
role in the determination of early union organisation and character. Poole (ibid) asserts
that Methodism was less extensive in its impact that its supporters would claim. He
notes that Methodism’s influence was largely absent from communities of the urban
poor.
Methodism made only a supplementary contribution to trade union formation, class
consciousness and general social outlook in the early part of the 19th century and other
forces of a more structural character were ultimately of far greater effect. Pelling (1976)
views Methodism as providing a one sided and idealistic view of world history.
Notwithstanding the criticism of the role of Methodism in shaping worker organisations
in the 19th century, writers such as Bayat (1991) acknowledge the ethical-moral
elements inherent in the concept of worker participation. Bayat (ibid) postulates that the
moral approach makes an appeal to ideas of justice and participation and that this is
what workers as human beings deserve. The idea of justice expressed by all non-
utilitarian and revolutionary movements in the world is reflected in the ideals of freedom
(of choice), equality (of opportunity) and solidarity (in relation to distribution according to
needs).

Contributing to the moral-ethical discourse of worker participation, some writers argue

that socio–political perspectives fail to adequately address the reasons behind workers
participation, in the same manner in which the “moral” argument which appeals to ideas
about the value of human life and what is good for human beings does.

The Utopian- Socialist Perspective

This represents one of the earliest perspectives of worker participation. The perspective
is by and large premised on the notion of the need to dismantle what are regarded as
the exploitative structures of capitalism. Accordingly, Bayat (ibid) contends that some
renowned utopian socialists, such as Robert Owen and Charles Fourier advocated for
the establishment of autonomous communities to be organised by the working people
were to be subordinated to the general management of the whole community. In this
regard, workers’ communities would provide a response to the alienation of workers in
the bleak conditions of the industrial revolution.
Among the utopian thinkers, were anarchists such as Pierre Joseph Proadhon and
Saint–Simon who according to Bayat (ibid) advocated for the dismantling of capitalism
through education, as opposed to violence in order to establish worker communities. On
the extreme of the “continuum” of anarchism, is anarcho-syndicalism, which stresses
revolutionary violence to achieve similar goals. Anarcho-syndicalism views the workers’
seizure of power in industry as a protection against the coercive power of the state
Bayat (ibid). This was believed to be achieved through a revolutionary general strike,
during which the workers would occupy the factories. In general, however, the
syndicalism movement confined its activities to the industrial workplace, assuming in
principle that social relations at the point of production are the determining factor in
social structure.

Marxist critics of the utopian approach argue that as long as the proletariat has not
sufficiently developed to organise itself as a class, its struggle with the bourgeoisie
would remain without a political character

The Marxist Perspective

The Marxist theory of alienation and the revolutionary working class struggle is
essentially a conflict theory. Conflict is perceived as endemic to a system in which basic
contradictions exist between the, workers (seller of labour power) and the capitalist
(buyers of labour power), with the latter constantly striving to maximise profits. The
conflict of interests, which originates in the industrial context and extends into all major
social and political institutions and practices, is deemed to be irreconcilable.

The Marxist approach insists that in capitalist societies, the state is essentially on the
side of the employer and seeks to protect the interest of the bourgeoisie.
The emphasis is therefore placed on the need to fight for democratic political
institutions. These political institutions however, cannot be realized without economic
and social democracy. Marxists advocate for a socialist democracy based upon the
notion of self-management of the associated producers. In this respect workers would
shape their own development freely and consciously.

Marxists insists that economic and political issues cannot be separated. They place
great emphasis on the antagonistic interests of capital and labour and they focus in a
way that many other perspectives do not, on not, on the importance of assessing the
power held by opposing interests. The most concisely stated of the communist union
theories, is Lenin’s work. Lenin argues that, oppressed workers in capitalist societies
form unions to shield themselves from employer power.
Lenin further observed that, to counter-balance employer power without political
influence was both illusory and counter-productive in terms of the ultimate “salvation” of
the workers. The real power of unions was political, and this could be used productively
only by politically conscious revolutionary intellectuals who would lead the unions away
from the economic, into the political struggle for a socialist system which did not depend
on the exploitative search for surplus value.
In the same manner, political theorists like Michels (1915) and Mills (1959) quoted by
Palmer (1983) in Shadur (1994) have argued that trade unions are hindrances in the
process to radical change. Union activities were perceived as addressing small group or
sectional interests and not the interest of the working class as a whole. Anderson (1967)
as cited by Palmer in Shadur (1994) argues that as institutions, trade unions do not
challenge the existence of a society based on a division of classes. Trade unions can
never be vehicles of advancing towards socialism. They bargain within society but
cannot transform it.

According to Haralambos and Holborn (1992), Marx, saw danger and promise in the
formation of trade unions. He feared that they might be to exclusively bend upon the
local and immediate struggles with capitalism. Trade unions could become preoccupied
with furthering the interest of their particular members and in doing so they could lose
sight of the overall struggle between capital and labour.

However, Haralambos and Holborn (ibid) further content that Marx believed that unions
contained the potential to become “organised agencies for superseding the very system
of wage labour and capital rule”. By uniting workers in a struggle against employers,
unions could help to create class consciousness. Cooperation among against
employers on a local level could lead to class solidarity on a national level.

It follows therefore, that the Marxist, who are less dismissive of employee participation
within capitalism, can quote Marx’s support for trade unions as the organisations
through which workers would gain the experience and political consensus which would
lead them on to effective struggle for social change.
The critics of the Marxist perspective of worker participation contend that the Marxist
tradition does not really provide an alternative model or framework for analysing the
varieties of interaction between labour markets and political process. Marxism has been
primarily concerned with insisting that class conflict remains inherent in the fundamental
structure of capitalism. In this respect, they argue that Marxist analysis has neither
specified the ways in which class conflict underlines empirically observable institutional
arrangements in the labour market and political arena, nor explained the conditions
under which conflict within these spheres becomes latent or manifest.

The Pluralist Perspective

The pluralist frame of reference accepts that within any industrial enterprise there exists
variety of competing groups and individual as is the case in wider society. Competing
interest are maintained in some degree of equilibrium, each recognising the legitimacy
of the competition for instance between unions and management.

Pluralists such as Haralambos and Holborn (ibid) believe that power industrial societies
is dispersed between interests groups, all over which have some power. In this regard,
trade unions form the major groups representing the interests of employees.
Pluralist scholars perceive organisations as complex social structures made up of a
plurality of potentially conflicting interest groups.

Another element, which is emphasised by pluralists the collective nature of the groups.
The pluralist’s paradigm tends to favours collective entities over individual workers as
the vehicle for articulating labour interest. Collective organisations, such as trade unions
workers’ committees are seen not only as efficient for representing individual interests,
but also as devices for weighing and aggregating these interests. They also provide
accountability for economic and political decisions once a consensus has been reached.
However, critics of the pluralist’s ideology argue that pluralist-intuitionalists analysis is
too conservative, too concerned with controlling conflict for the benefit of the status quo
and too involved with institutions instead of individual workers. Shadur (1994) argues
that pluralist-institutions define labour unrest as symptomatic of malfunctioning industrial
relations system as a sign of the need for reform. Reform is seen as a procedural matter
in which labour and management, sometimes in cooperation with government, are
interested in re-organising the structure of the industrial relations system in order to
eliminate the unrest. By implication, they endorse procedures, which leave the balance
of power between labour and management unchanged.
The pluralist ideology is often accused of lacking a distinctive frame of reference.
Flanders (ibid) ascribes to pluralist an assumption of equality of power between
competing groups, an equality which is merely a delusion and, whether intend or not,
serves to perpetuate basic inequalities basic between workers and management.
Central to the pluralist paradigm, is the assumption that labour-capital conflict can be
contained and that it is not necessarily destructive.

The Liberal Collectivism Perspective

Central to this school of thought is the acceptance of the inevitability of conflict between
employers and employees on economic issues.
Liberal collectivism goes beyond pluralism and prescribes “collective bargaining as the
fairest and most efficient, method of institutionalising and resolving conflict at work”.
Palmer (1983) in Shadur argues that liberal collectivism is sometimes confusingly
labelled pluralist industrial relations literature. In differentiating liberal collectivism from
proper pluralism as it were Palmer (ibid) argues the case for liberal collectivism by
asserting that it is liberal because it advocates a limited, passive role for government
and the use of contracts freely negotiated between conflicting parties, as the best
method for resolving disputes. It is collective since it accepts the legitimate right of
employees to from collective organisations to increase their bargaining power when
negotiating contracts.
Liberal collectivists define collective bargaining as the process by which trade unions,
representing groups of employees, negotiate with employers or their representative with
the object, of reaching agreement. Collective bargaining is a power bargaining method
in which the negotiating positions are backed by economic sanctions. On the employee
side this requires the legal right and practical ability to take industrial Act ion like strikes,
go- slows or overtime bans. On the employer side it requires the right to act in the last
resort, without agreement, to managerial prerogative, and to lock out or sack employees
in dispute. The government’s role in this bargaining process is essentially passive.
Underlying liberal collectivism is a requirement of a political system which allows
employees freedom of association so that they can organise into economic pressure
groups which are independent of employers’ or the state. Liberal collectivists believe
bargaining creates a form of industrial democracy by allowing employees a voice in the
determination of their pay and conditions of employment. politically, collective
bargaining is viewed as capable of enhancing the ability of a society by removing
potentially disruptive industrial conflicts from the political arena and providing asset of
institutions for the relatively peaceful resolution of employment-base conflicts (Palmer,
ibid).Collective bargaining is the great social invention that has institutionalised
industrial conflict in the same way that the electoral process and majority rule have
institutionalised political conflict in a democracy.
Nevertheless, liberal collectivism, with its emphasis on collective bargaining has not
been spared of criticism. Palmer (ibid), asserts that the trade union role is too weak and
limited under collective bargaining arrangements and that the separation of collective
bargaining from other political and managerial decision-making processes contributes to
the weakening of the trade union role. He further argues that, employees should not be
limited in their influence to basic pay and conditions of employment but should have a
voice on a much wider range of economic and political decisions related to work.
Accordingly, worker representatives should be accepted on tripartite decision-making
bodies at national government level and should be represented on management boards
at company level, in order to ensure genuine industrial democracy and the adequate
representation of the labour forces’ interests.
From another point of view, some writers criticise the liberal collectivism ideology,
arguing that collective bargaining which is central to this philosophy, is to disruptive,
either because the level of industrial Act ion is too high and costly to nations or because
of because employers and employees collude to push up wages and prices without due
regard to consumers, thereby generating cost-push inflation.

The Corporatist Perspective

The corporatist perspective of worker participation is premised on the peaceful co-
operation among the state, labour and capital. According to Bayat (ibid) the corporatist
approach is best represented by the attitudes of the International LabourOrganisation
(ILO) towards labour relations in general and worker participation in particular. The ILO
in fact, emphasises a tripartite approach by the social partners i.e. Government, labour
and employers.
Corporatism is defined as a system of interest representation in which the state directs
the activists of predominantly privately, owned industries in partnership with the
representatives of capital and labour. Palmer(ibid). The argument backing corporatists
prescriptions are that; unbridled competition and power–based bargaining between
groups in society produce results that are socially divisive and unjust and that more co-
ordinated, centrally administered tripartite decision-making can produce fair and efficient
results.
Shadur (ibid) presents Schmitter’s widely respected definition of corporatism as a
system of interest group intermediation where the units are organised into a limited
number of singular, compulsory, non-competitive, hierarchically ordered and functionally
differentiated categories, recognised or licensed (if not created) by the state and
granted a deliberate representational monopoly within their respective categories in
exchange for observing certain controls on their selection of leaders and articulation of
demands.
Furthermore, Shadur (ibid) observes that Schmitter differentiates corporatism from
pluralism in which interest groups operate as an unspecified number of multiple,
voluntary, competitive, non-hierarchically ordered and self–determined categories that
are not controlled by the state. He also identifies two types of corporatism i.e. societal
and state. Other authors refer to them as liberal and authoritarian corporatism
respectively. Liberal or societal corporatism relates to associates that have a strong
influence on the state whereas state or authoritarian corporatism is unfettered by such
influences and imposes a semblance, of unity Shadur (ibid).
The arguments backing corporatist prescriptions rest on important assumptions about
the distribution of power in society. Durkheim (ibid) submits that the division of labour in
modern society has created numerous conflicting interests groups. Competition among
these groups is seen as the essence of social life. However, a key problem in modern
society is to keep this competition within reasonable bounds. moral advocates of
corporatism, such as Palmer (ibid), point out that, society is sub-divided into numerous
competing groups and that there is sufficiently complex balance of power to ensure that
no group dominates, and that the state will; adopt a neutral, umpire role between
competing interests.
Critics of corporatist’s models believe that capital and labour are not equal in the power
they wield and therefore state intervention is likely to lead to oppression. On specifics,
Shadur (ibid) submits that Martin (1983) Nedelamnn and Meir (1977) have
criticisedSchmitter for failing to adequately distinguish between societal corporatism and
pluralism. He is also criticised for failing to examine the issue of classes as it relates to
the state.
In the process of analysis Schimitter’s model of corporatism Cawson (1986) in Shadur
(1994) identifies three features that distinguish corporatism from pluralism. These are:
a). The extent of competition in the group process;
b). The nature of the groups, and,
c). Their relationship to public authorities.
As ideal-types pluralism involves a large number of competing groups while corporatism
entails the monopolisation of representation. Pluralist groups voluntary associations of
individuals whereas corporatism involves interest representation through compulsory
groups. Cawson 91986) in Shadur (ibid:14) offers the following definition:
Corporatism is a specific socio-political process in which organisation representing
monopolistic functional interests engage in political exchange with state agencies over
public policy outputs which involves those organisations in a role which combines
interest representation and policy, implementation through delegated self-enforcement.

Nationalism and Worker Participation in Colonial Zimbabwe

Worker participation systems were as mentioned earlier on, developed and practised for
many years in European before being exported to Africa and elsewhere during the
colonial period. Initially, trade unions, as shall be observed in unit 2 were only for white
workers in colonial Africa.
For black worker, the agitation for worker participation can be traced to the struggle
against the colonial administration.
The nationalism crusade of the post-Second World War in Africa was supported by
resistance by black workers to poor remuneration and working conditions in factories
and in the agricultural sector.
Black workers organised themselves to fight colonial injustices at the workplaces. It is
not surprising that some of the renowned Zimbabwean nationalist, such as Benjamin
Burombo and Joshua Nkomo, emerged from the working class movement in the late
1940’s.
The entrance into the political arena of black trade unionist in colonial Zimbabwe
ensured that the concerns of the black working class were part of the nationalist
agenda.
Aspirations for worker participation became part of the struggle against the successive
colonial regimes in the period between 1945 and 1980. Democratisation of workplaces
was high on the ZANU manifesto in the build up to the 1980 general elections.

Forms of participation
Traditionally, the role of management in organisations was seen as the management
and coordination of organizational activities through planning, organizing, motivating
and control. The role of the worker, in turn, was to be recruited and trained to carryout
specific tasks (the execution function). However, the need arose to bridge this gap
between the roles of management and workers. Salamon (1998:355) proposes that
forms of interaction should be brought about by means of which “workers” , while
continuing to fulfill the role of workers, can participate (directly or indirectly) in certain
functions which have traditionally been classified as “management”
There are various ways in which such interaction can be achieved, for example through
joint consultation and collective bargaining. Walker (1975), however, divides it into the
following three elements.
• The method or degree of participation: direct participation is characterized by
active individual involvement in the decision making processes, while indirect
participation is characterized by the activities of elected representatives.
• The level in the organization: participation may vary from ground level(the
immediate work situation of the worker) participation to participation at board level
• The goal or scope of participation: direct, lower-level participation in the
organization is usually task-centred, whereas higher –level indirect participation tends
rather to be power centred.

Cordova (1982) as quoted in Anesty (1997:2) proposes four basic forms of participation
namely shop floor participation, works council, collective bargaining and representation
on company boards. Other forms of participation have also been developed in specialist
areas such as health and safety productivity, pension funds and training.

According to Nel (2002:218) participation in the work environment can assume different
forms. It can take place from within the organisations (internally) or by way of parties
outside the organisations (externally). Internal participation can, in turn, also assume
different forms, namely statutory or voluntary participation. Statutory bodies for worker
participation include workplace forums and safety committees, while voluntary
participation is achieved by means of methods such as quality circles, team work and
task teams.

Participation may also be direct or indirect. Direct participation occurs when a worker
participates, personally and directly, in the decision making processes of the
organisations. Usually, such participation is voluntary and there is thus no form of
representation. Workers elect representatives from among their ranks to participate in
the decision making process on their behalf. These representatives are usually shop
stewards or fellow workers who work in the same workplace. When workers are
represented by persons outside the organisations, such as by fulltime trade union
officials, this is known as participation by way of external representation.
Nel (2002:218) defines direct worker participation as follows: “direct worker participation
customarily entails that the subordinate participants speak for themselves about work or
matters related to work; [it] is regarded as a process of job enrichment and enlargement
where the worker is offered the possibility of extending the depth and width of his work
tasks, but without any control over organizational planning or goal setting”.

Where the worker is involved in the process giving rise to increased productivity, it is
important that he or she should share in the financial rewards resulting therefrom. To be
of value, direct worker participation must also include the following elements:
• The provision of all information relevant to the particular task/ work.
• Consultation regarding changes which will affect the worker
• Personal involvement of the worker in the decision making process.

Direct worker participation is usually associated with low level participation, because
this is the level at which workers operate and where they are usually best able to
contribute. It is important to note however, that, without some form of direct worker
participation, it is unlikely that indirect worker participation will be successful.
Anstey (1997:6) defines indirect worker participation as those forms of participation
which occur through representation. Normally, such forms of participation occur at
higher levels in the organization and tend to be power-centered.
There are various statutory bodies which facilitate indirect worker participation. This
type of participation takes place when, in addition to their operational tasks, workers
represent their fellow workers on management boards of directors, works councils and
other committees. Such representatives must be democratically nominated and elected
and the election procedures are usually laid down in an organization’s policy
documents.
Salamon (1998:357) maintains that, according to the model represented, there are only
two contrasting strategies namely:
• Direct forms of involvement. These forms of worker involvement (eg
empowerment, team work, briefing groups, quality circles) focus on the individual
worker or work group, and on the immediate operational situation (task centered). Such
strategy may be referred to as one of decreasing involvement, since employers initiate
such a development for their own purposes (involvement is offered) and, as part of the
changes, power and responsibility are transferred from employer to worker in respect of
limited series of job related decisions (eg work methods, task allocation, quality
maintenance). However, the content of this phase is confined primarily to the
implementation phase of operational decisions that have already been taken by
management. The aim of this approach is to motivate the individual worker, to increase
job satisfaction and to heighten the degree to which the worker identifies with the goals
and decisions (as determined by management) of the organisations.
• Indirect forms of participation: indirect forms of participation, for example the
expansion of collective bargaining, the establishment of works council/ workplace
forums, and the appointment of worker directors, focus the attention on the execution of
the “managerial prerogative” and on the balance of a power between management and
workers in the decision making process of the organisations. This strategy may be
referred to as one of increasing participation because it aims at protecting worker
interests by expanding their collective influence to include a wider range of decisions at
higher levels in the organisations, and because the initiatives for developing these
forms of participation can come from workers and their representatives (indirect
participation requires representatives). Thus, this form of participation is concerned
primarily with extending the workers’ influence by means of a process of joint decision
making in respect of policies and organizational planning which, formerly, were the
exclusive prerogative of management.
It should therefore be clear that a distinction must be drawn between “involvement” and
participation” Lawler (1991), as quoted in Anstey (1997:2) defines worker involvement
as “extension of the power to make decisions and of business information, rewards for
performance and technical and social skills to the lowest levels of the organisations”. All
the elements of this definition are very important. Without the power to take decision,
workers participating is merely superficial; it is naïve and potentially harmful if there is
inadequate information about the organization; rewards are necessary to bring
individual motivation in line with organizational goals; and effective participation requires
technical and social skills. Workers involvement is reflected in the way in which it is
managed and structured rather than merely by the attitudes of individuals. Anstey
(1997) identifies three types of worker involvement, namely:
• Involvement by suggestion is usually generated by structures such as quality
circles. These structures function in parallel with the formal organizational structure and
require no change.
• Task involvement entails those forms of involvement where workers in self-
regulating acquire greater control over day to day decisions which directly influence
their tasks. These types of approaches automatically change the job/post design.
• High level involvement includes the above two approaches, but goes further in
that it involves workers in the management of the organization. Far-reaching changes,
including the sharing of power and information, skills development and changed human
resources systems, are anticipated in such work environments.

Different levels of participation

Techniques of worker participation
The various worker participation techniques may be employed at any of the levels of
participation or with form or participation. Nel identifies the following techniques:
Participation by suggestion
Participation by suggestion involves individual workers trying to influence employer
decision making, usually at a localized level (e.g at a plant or shop floor level). It often
concerns decisions which are of direct relevance to a workers’ job. The emphasis is
generally on day to day decision making of limited application within the organisations
as a whole. Methods such as speak up sessions and suggestions box systems may be
used.

This technique focuses on offering workers an opportunity to make suggestions, for

example about the use of raw materials, technological improvement, ideas on cost
saving, how to increase work efficiency by means of new techniques or equipment,
improvement in communication better supervisory practices and the like.

There will often be committees (sometimes consisting of both worker and management
representatives) whose responsibility it is to review, evaluate and consider these
suggestions. A worker may ask his or her shop steward to put forward a suggestion on
his or her behalf. Thus participation is not always direct in nature and may be informal.

Participation through quality circles

The concept of quality circles has generally become a very popular technique for getting
lower level workers involved in upward problem solving and, consequently, in decision
making.

Munetsi (1998:40) defines a quality circle as a team of workers which meets on a

regular basis in order to analyze and solve work related problems. According to Nel
(2002:222) , a quality circle is essentially a worker discussion group which usually
consists of six to ten workers from the same section or department in organization.
Such groups meet regularly, for instance weekly of fortnightly, to identify, analyze,
investigate, evaluate and consider problems in their work environment. These problems
are work-or production related with the focus falling on quality improvement. Meetings
take place during working hours, when ideas are pooled in order to come up with
solutions to problems in the workplace and thus improve the quality of work and work
output.

According to Anstey 1997:7), quality circles are the most common form of direct
participation. He defines a quality circle as consisting of a small group which meets
voluntarily for the purpose of exercising quality control functions in the workplace.
Usually, such a group forms part of alarmed, organisations-wide quality improvement
programme. Quality circles do not require significant changes in the relationships of
power within a traditionally, hierarchical structured organisation, but function linearly
with the existing, formal structure in the organization.

The members of quality circles are volunteers with the same objectives and experience.
They should preferably be well trained in aspects such as data collection, statistical and
analytical methodologies, and general problem solving techniques. A quality circle
consists of a leader, a facilitator and a steering committee.

Often, departmental heads, section heads or supervisors assume the role of leaders of
quality circles. However, leaders may also be elected from among the ranks of workers
or group members. The leader has a coordinating and liaison functions and must
possess sound leadership skills. The facilitator is appointed by the steering committee
and is also a member of such committee. He or she coordinates and keeps records of
all activities, organizes meetings and arranges for submissions to management. The
facilitator is responsible for the training of leaders and assists with the training of team
members. The steering committee is a way in which top management provides the
necessary support and such committee must be representative of all facets of the
business. The committee must provide he guidelines and resources which a quality
circle needs, and must plan the implementation of proposals. Further functions of the
steering committee include the following:
• Monitoring progress and measuring the cost effectiveness of quality circle
activities.
• Arranging publicity for quality-circle activities and achievements
• Controlling the degree of expansion of the quality circle.
Final decisions on changes in the workplace are usually not taken by the quality circle.
Instead, suggestions are made and possible solutions are passed on to the
section/departmental head for final decision making regarding the implementation
thereof.

Economic/financial participation
Economic or financial participation of employee may take various forms, such as profit
sharing, individual and group bonus incentive schemes, and share ownership schemes.
These schemes are indeed not new in many companies. Their recent popularity does,
however, reflect a comparative trend in several Western industrialized economies
towards devolution of financial participation to lower levels of the organisation (Horwitz
1990).
Goals of financial participation
The goals of financial participation are alleged by some to reflect managerial strategies
aimed at the co-option of workers into a management ethos- an ideological goal.
Proponents of this view argue that it is simply a manipulate form of managerial control
aimed at humanizing capitalism and its work process, in the interest of better
productivity.
A second goal of financial participation is that of stake holding whereby employees are
given a genuine stake in the property of the business and are likely to substantively
benefit by its success. Whilst the stakeholder arguments could be criticized as similar to
the management ideology thesis, it can reflect a pluralist conception of industrial
relations (IR), recognizing inherent conflicts of interest between capital and labour and
acknowledging the importance of collective bargaining as a primary process for wealth
distribution. The rationale of the stakeholder thesis focuses mainly on facilitating wealth
creation by linking organisational commitment to rewards. Research findings in the
United States indicate that financial state holding through ESOPs is frequently
considered as an employer method to prevent potential takeover bids, as employee
shareholders are more likely than outside ones to support the company’s managers
against a hostile takeover bid.
International comparatives studies have shown that the stakeholder thesis in general,
and financial participation in a particular, are more likely to work successfully where the
trade union movement is strong and is able to influence the type and implementation of
these schemes (Poole 1988) in most Western industrial societies, as well as in South
Africa, it has been argued by employers that financial participation such as share
ownership reflects the employers’ right to deal directly with employee to enhance their
stake in the organisation and is therefore a separate matter from that of collective
bargaining. Since wealth generation has its origin in the substantive (IR0 interest issue
of wealth distribution can be separated from collective labour relations processes.
Financial participation is an individual based form of participation based on the willing
consent of an individual employee.it has little to do with the de facto distribution of
power in and governance of organisations. Representational or collective forms of
worker expression area necessary prerequisite for industrial democracy. Financial
participation on its own cannot advance industrial democracy. Financial participation on
its own cannot advance industrial democracy, since worker influence is generally limited
as minority shareholders.
In South Africa, it paper’s that employee share ownership commonly amounts to
between one and two percent of total shares in the company (LERC 1987). A South
African company, cash build, has endeavored to create a new cooperate culture that
incorporate culture that incorporate and reaches all its employees through the
implementation of participative management process. The company has also made
shares available to selected employees, called pioneers, who have over five years’
service, and to workers’ representatives. Shares are acquired either through a share
option or a share incentive scheme, and currently two to three percent of issued equity
is owned by employees. The then Managing Director, Albert Koopman,points out the
limitations of ESPOS: “that without employee participation in decision making, share
ownership does not generate changes in employee motivation, loyalty or productivity.”
Koopman (1986) describes it as follows: “you can’t sell free enterprise until you offer
free enterprise. Profit sharing and share allocations are a quick fix that won’t work. You
have to have justice at the workplace.”
In contrast to developed industrial societies, trade unions density in some developing
countries is increasing (e.g. in Namibia and South Africa), with industrial relations policy
choices reflecting a strong ideology content. Unitarist ideologies in the latter context can
be associated with employer responses to political conflict and the extent of polarization
in the society, with organisational manifestations in lower commitment, the strong
prevalence of instrumental attitudes to work, and poor labour productivity. However
financial participation in both developed and some developing countries, such as South
Africa, is perhaps, for different reasons, sometimes associated with practices and
strategies which seek to achieve the following:
• Seducing employees away from collective of indirect or representative
participation, towards individual, consensual forms of direct involvement, such as
financial participation and quality circles. For example, the then General Secretary of
the National union of Mineworkers in South Africa, Cyril Ramaphosa, described the
Anglo American Corporation’s offer of shares to its employees as “political and
economic blackmail to try and seduce workers way from unionism and
socialism”( 1987:51).
• Provision of a personal, economic stake holding in the organisation through
financial participation, for example employee share-ownership plans, profit sharing and
performance-related incentives schemes. This seems generally to be the case in
Australia and British companies;
• De-emphasis way from interests based models of collective bargaining towards
decentralized, joint consultation, problem solving, strike free agreements and single
union agreements, such as those in the united kingdom entered into between the
Electrical, Electronic, Telecommunications and Plumbing Union (EETPU) and
employers such as Hitachi, Irlandus, Nissan,Sanyo, Sharp,Shotton Paper and Xidex
(Basset1989).
The somewhat persuasive emphasis of financial participation on achieving
organisational and particularly managerial objectives, belies the pluralist conception of
organisations.
Types of financial participation
Comparatively, the following are four main types of financial participation which occur.
Profit sharing
This is the most prevalent in Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom, occurring
at all organisational levels. Profit sharing is considered by any employers as preferable
to share ownership schemes, as effort and rewards are considered more measurable,
especially if short term rewards/ returns are offered, based on measurable performance
in particular sectors (e.g. batch manufacturing, and retailing). In the United Kingdom,
over 20 % of companies have profit sharing or share ownership schemes (Poole
1988:23). The share of profits fluctuates with the economic performance of the firm.
Profit sharing may not therefore provide a stable level of income over time.
Employee share ownership plan/ schemes
ESOPs are popular at various levels in the United States, United Kingdom and South
Africa. It is estimated that at least 11 million employees (10 % of the workforce) in the
United States are on an ESOPs type scheme. Current estimates in the United Kingdom
are that over 50 % of publicly quoted companies have some type of financial
participation scheme (Poole 1988:23). Kurland (1988) considers ESOPs as a toll for
broadening participation of employee in company profits and decision making. It aims to
increase an employee’s stake and commitment to the prosperity of the business.
In Britain, the sector which has the most “all –employee” schemes (both for ESOPs and
profit sharing) is the financial sector (50 percent). However, evidence of a link between
ESOPs and improved worker performance has proved elusive (Dewe 1988:3). Based
on a poll of 350 United States companies, those with ESOPs were found to have had a
sales growth 40% higher and job creation 46% higher in 10 year than those without
ESOP schemes (Crainer 1988). Whilst legislation in the United States creates tax
advantages for ESOPs, research into the relationships between ESOPs and economic
performance is fraught with methodological difficulties. Rival casual or intervening
variables may account for superior performance and not ESOPs, for example
productivity increases in large companies may occur independently as a result of the
impact of other factors such as a particular economies of scale, technical innovation
sophisticated human resource management, together with other forms of participation.
Changes in organisational culture and structure, such as the devolution of decision
making down to the lower levels in the organisation, and the associated autonomy, are
also factors in productivity improvement. There is an indication that, in wholly employee-
owned firms in the United States, the mix of ESOPs and other forms of participation can
be linked with growth and productivity improvement, as, for example, in Austin
industries and Wyatt Cafeterias. Studies at the University of Michigan have shown that
(wholly) employee-owned companies are more profitable than employee-owned
companies (Hennery 1989).
An ESOP can combine several elements. These include employee benefits, incentive
and productivity schemes a, services and retirement benefits. It may be offered as a
reward system, with a basic salary supplemented with cash bonuses and equity shares
linked to the proceeds of a company. It is two-way, interactive process between
management and employees and means for workers to participate both as workers and
as shareholders in contributing to company goals.
Depending on the tax law as of a country, it can be an in-house, tax exempt stock
exchange for both new equity purchases and the repurchases of outstanding shares.it
may offer workers a source of dividend income. ESOPs can bring capital gain to the
worker as a means by which people without savings and ownership can become
owners of new wealth. In the past, capital gain has been available to those who were
already within the ownership framework.
Group financial/bonus incentive schemes occur largely in the manufacturing sectors,
including unionized firms in the United Kingdom, Scandavian countries, Northern
European and Austria. Unions, whilst remaining wary are more likely to negotiate a
group productivity bonus scheme than an individual performance based scheme. The
main purpose of bonus incentive schemes is to enhance economic performance and
motivation by means of financial reward.

Individual performance incentive schemes

Individual performance schemes occur in non-union or partially/ weakly unionized firms
at all employee levels, but predominantly in the United States. Elsewhere, they occur
mainly at executive management levels and in respect of sales functions.
Collective participation
An important issue is that of the relationship between financial participation and the
collective representation of employees. According to Poole 91988), the modem
development of financial participation schemes at employee levels is connected with
managerial “styles” of industrial relations. Poole argues that the weakened position of
trade unions in several western countries has enabled managers to actively promote
financial participation, rather than being constrained to accept extensions of collective
bargaining or board level union representation. As regards unionized firms, Poole’s’
research indicates that financial participation schemes tend to be apt of a consultative
process and are less likely to be unilaterally introduced than in non-unionised firms. His
findings also suggest that there is a consistent tendency for companies with financial
participation schemes to be more likely than those without, to have various other types
of employee participation.
Stated differently, the evolutionary approach to participation posits that there has been a
progressive expansion of many types of participation during the twentieth century, and
that financial participation is merely part of a continued expansion of, and advance in,
more enlightened and “democratic” management-employee relations practices. What
limited research there is on defining the organisational context for successful financial
participation tends to support the evolutionary position. The second approach is the
cyclical position, which envisages participation as most likely to develop in areas of
economic growth or unrest, or, conversely, when an individual; organisation is in
decline. Anecdotal evidence is however quite strong for the thesis that ailing
organisations may often resort to a participative initiative to try to survive (eg the
Chrysler Motor Corporation). In this organisation, share ownership was negotiated with
agreement on wage cuts and interim job security guarantees. Employees at Chrysler
thus forfeited $585 million in pay increases over three years for equity of $165 million.
In sum, where economic feedback, consultation and joint decision making are part of
the “culture” of industrial relations in a firm,it is likely that these process will be invoked
in respect of the introduction of financial participation, and that this is more likely so with
stronger trade unions. Kurland (1988) stresses that, to reinforce the gradual building of
the ownership concept, an ESOP should be supplemented with frequent economic
feedback relating to the performance of the firm. This raises the important issues of the
compatibility of direct participation and existing collective bargaining arrangements. It
seems likely that legitimated financial participation is more and outcome of harmonious
and cooperative industrial relations than its cause. Preconditions for the legitimation of
financial participation schemes have been referred to by Horwitz(1989).
Depending on the extent to which pluralist values and inherent conflict of interests and
rights are institutionalised, unions tend to consider managerial practices of direct
employee involvement as undermining the independent nature of collective
representation and the power base derived rejecting and vetoing of the introduction of
financial participation initiatives ; (ii) active subversion once introduced (something
which has occurred in some Australia companies); (iii) malicious compliance and
occurred in subtle forms of protest; (iv)grudging, passive acknowledgment (e.g. by the
trade union congress in the United Kingdom, which has endorsed financial participation
schemes, proved that they materially improve their member’s standard of living);
(v)exerting union influence beyond collective bargaining by reconsidering participation in
other forms and at levels of both direct (eg by the EETPU in Britain) and indirect
participation; and, (vi) centrally influencing corporate strategic decision making, for
example by means of pressure from trade unions (eg the pressure by the Chemical
Workers Industrial Union on multinational oil companies in South Africa for participation
in decisions on social responsibility programmes, for disinvestment and for alternative
forms of investment).

Effectiveness of financial participation

Assessment of the effectiveness of employee ownership scheme tends to be defined in
terms of profit improvement and growth, for example in Weirton Steel and the Vermont
Asbestos group in United Sates (Rosen & Quarry 1987). Employee s share purchase
schemes have often been introduced in circumstances of financial crisis and when jobs
and union membership were under serious threat, for example in the United States
motor industry.
The increasing popularity of direct employee involvement, whilst having important
advantages for management and employees, can mask a deeper underlying distaste for
unionism. Attendant managerial strategies seek to formulate more “effective” techniques
for humanizing the work environment, gaining cooperation and competing with the union
for employee support. However, various types of participation can evolve incrementally
at all levels of an organisation.
New forms of individual, consensual participation are, however, different from
participation by negotiation. Strongest resistance to participate in practices which seek
greater loyalty, commitment and motivation is more likely where unions are still
developing and workers have strongly positive views about the instrumental and
ideological benefits of union membership. According to Poole (1988), a strong, powerful
and established trade union movement is less likely to see these managerial
approaches as potentially undermining its traditional role. Unions in these
circumstances may indeed be willing to consider alternative forms of participation in a
more favourable light, given the durability of existing collective bargaining institutions
and structures.
There is also a re-emerging debate in Western Europe and Scandinavia on the notion of
democratizing capital through collective capital formation as a means of socializing,
rather than nationalizing, control in organisations. Such control can apply to several
institutions, such as pension schemes and employee investment funds, though it does
not necessarily disturb prevailing property relations. The theory of collective capital
formation sees trade union as a major participant in this largely long term transformative
process. The Hisadrut trade union moment in Israel is vivid example of social ownership
and control, providing employment in union-owned business. Kurland (1988) also
describes the introduction of share ownership philosophy in developing countries such
as Egypt. The definitional and contextual understating of financial participation does,
however, require a reconceptualization of its assumptions about employees and
structures in organizations. This requires a review of the exclusive managerial definition
of the work milieu.

WORKERS COMMITTEE
It is essentially a body established to represent employees at plant level irrespective of
the representation of employee interests by a union or different unions. It is a body
through which management communicates and consults with representatives of
employees who, in turn communicate employee requests, problems and suggestions to
management. Effective workers committees will cover the whole range of employee
interests such as wage rates, benefit schemes, training, work organization, employee
facilities, productivity, retrenchments, working hours, employee education, grievance
and discipline. They enjoy their right to democracy in the workplace.They should not be
obstructed in the conduct of their business and should be protected from interference by
the employer. It also has a right to represent employees on the works council, before a
determining authority and before the Labour court.

SECTION 7: PROTECTION OF EMPLOYEES’ RIGHT TO DEMOCRACY IN THE

WORKPLACE
(1 ) No person shall—
(a) hinder, obstruct or prevent any employee from forming or conducting any workers
committee for the purpose of airing any grievance, negotiating any matter or advancing
or protecting the rights or interests of employees;
(b) threaten any employee with any reprisal for any lawful action taken by him in
advancing or protecting his rights or interests.
(2 ) Every employer shall permit a labour officer or a representative of the appropriate
trade union, if any, to have reasonable access to his employees at their place of work
during working hours for the purpose of—
of—
(a) advising the employees on the law relating to their employment; and
(b) advising and assisting the employees in regard to the formation or conducting of
workers committees and trade unions; and
(c) ensuring that the rights and interests of the employees are protected and advanced;
and shall provide such labour officer or representative of the appropriate trade union, if
any, with reasonable facilities and access for the exercise of such functions.
SECTION 24: FUNCTIONS OF WORKERS COMMITTEE

A workers committee shall—

(a) subject to this Act, represent the employees concerned in any matter affecting their
rights and interests; and
(b) subject to subsection (3 ), be entitled to negotiate with the employer concerned a
collective bargaining agreement relating to the terms and conditions of employment of
the employees concerned; and
(c) subject to Part XIII, be entitled to recommend collective job action to the employees
concerned; and
(d) where a works council is or is to be constituted at any workplace, elect some of its
members to represent employees on the works council.

Subject to subsection (3), where a workers committee has been appointed or elected to
represent employees, no person other than such workers committee and the
appropriate trade union, if any, may—
(a) act or purport to act for the employees in negotiating any collective bargaining
agreement; or
(b) direct or recommend collective job action to the employees.
(3 ) Where an appropriate trade union exists for any employees, a workers committee of
those employees may negotiate a collective bargaining agreement with an employer—
(a) in the case where the trade union has no collective bargaining agreement with the
employer concerned, only to the extent that such negotiation is authorized in writing by
the trade union concerned; or in the case where there is a collective bargaining
agreement, only to the extent permitted by such collective bargaining agreement; or
(c) where the Minister certifies in writing that—

(i) the issue in question was omitted from or included in the principal collective
bargaining agreement when it should not have been so omitted or included; and

(ii) the parties to the principal collective bargaining agreement have failed or are not in a
position to reach an agreement on such an issue

WORKS COUNCIL
It is composed of representatives of all employees at an undertaking and the
representatives of the employer. It is mandated to deal with all problems arising at the
workplace.

ROLE OF WORKS COUNCIL sec 25A

In every establishment in which a workers committee representing employees other
than managerial employees has been elected, there shall be a works council composed
of an equal number of members representing the employer and the workers committee.
Procedure of a works council shall be as determined by the employer and the workers
committee at the establishment concerned.

Functions of WC
(a) to focus the best interests of the establishment and employees on the best possible
use of its human, capital, equipment and other resources, so that maximum
productivity and optimum employment standards may be maintained; and
(b) to foster, encourage and maintain good relations between the employer and
employees at all levels, and to understand and seek solutions to their common
problems; and to promote the general and common interest, including the health, safety
and welfare of both the establishment and its workers; and in general, to promote and
maintain the effective participation of employees in the establishment, and to secure the
mutual co-operation and trust of employees, the employer and any registered trade
union

Without prejudice to the provisions of any collective bargaining agreement that may be
applicable to the establishment concerned, a works council shall be entitled to be
consulted by the employer about proposals relating to any of the following matters—

(a) the restructuring of the workplace caused by the introduction of new technology and
work methods; (b) product development plans, job grading and training and education
schemes affecting employees;

(c) partial or total plant closures and mergers and transfers of ownership; (d) the
implementation of an employment code of conduct;

(e) the criteria for merit increases or payment of discretionary bonuses; (f) the
retrenchment of employees, whether voluntary or compulsory

Before an employer may implement a proposal relating to any matter referred to in

subsection (5), the employer shall—

(a) afford the members of the works council representing the workers committee a
reasonable opportunity to make representations and to advance alternative proposals;

(b) consider and respond to the representations and alternative proposals, if any, made
under paragraph

(a) and, if the employer does not agree with them, state the reasons for disagreeing;

(c) generally, attempt to reach consensus with the members of the works council
representing the workers committee on any matter referred to in subsection (5 )
DISCUSSION
How effective has been the Works Council arrangements in promoting workplace
negotiations and conducive employee relations in Zimbabwe? Give an illustration with
an organization of your choice

EMPLOYMENT COUNCILS
Employer organization and a trade union can form an employment council and there is
equal representation.It is covered in the Labour Act section 55.Its main duty is to assist
in the conclusion of Collective Bargaining Agreement. NECs appoint designated agents
and are issued with certificates of appointment. A designated agent needs reasonable
access to employees to assist them about their rights. He is given reasonable access to
books and records relating to employment records and he prevents and detect an
offence and may be asked to address a dispute.
DISCUSSION
Analyse the history of an NEC of your choice and answer the following
What is the name of the employer’s organization in that industry?
What are the names of the unions in that industry?
Between the 2 where does the power lie?
Give evidence of your answers

TRADE UNIONS

Section 27 of LRA a group of employees may form a trade union

What is a trade union?

An organisation of workers created to protect and advance the interests of its members
by negotiating agreements with employers on pay and conditions of work.
History of Trade unions in Zimbabwe
Common law does not recognize trade unions. Initial legislation (master and servant
ordinance act of 1901 did not recognize trade unions. Industrial conciliation act of 1934-
Act number 10 of 1934 was first in the history of Zimbabwe to recognize trade unions.
Section 21 of the old constitution and labour relations act of 1985 gave full recognition
of rights of employees to form unions in Zimbabwe. The conciliation Act was partially for
whites.
Unions may also provide legal advice, financial assistance, sickness benefits and
education facilities.
Within 6 months of formation the trade union shall provide a written constitution and
submit to Minister showing:
- qualification for membership
- rights of person’s within the membership
- the number of officials and office bearers
- The holding of annual general meetings
- Re appointment of office bearers
- Calling and conducting meetings
- Issues of discrimination
- amendment of constitution
- winding up of trade unions
- Can raise subscriptions from its members

No unregistered Trade Union shall

 Make representation to the Labour Court

 Be assisted by an agent or labour officer
 Form or be represented at the employment council
 Recommend collective job action
 Have the right to access employee records
 Levy collect or recover union dues

A registered trade union may act as the agent union of employees in an undertaking or
industry

An unregistered union may ask the registered union to act as its agent

Such applications shall be forwarded to the Minister who will

- ascertain the extent to which the registered trade union appreciates needs of
employee in that industry
- Ability of the union to act as agent
- No registered trade union shall act as an agent for more than 3 years without renewal
or after a union is registered in that industry

Any interested person may apply to the registrar for variation, suspension or rescission
of registration if :

The trade union no longer represents the interest areas of which it was registered

It has failed to perform any of its functions in terms of the act

Minister may regulate the collection of union dues in terms of maximum amount,
accounting procedures and the auditing

DISCUSSION
Analyse the factors that gave rise to the formation of ZFTU

Analyse Trade Union activities in the Public Service

Analyse Trade Union Activities in the Private Sector and their role in NECs in
Zimbabwe
What is trade union recognition?
A trade union is “recognised” by an employer when it negotiates agreements with
employers on pay and other terms and conditions of employment on behalf of a group
of workers, defined as the ‘bargaining unit’. This process is known as ‘collective
bargaining’.
Recognition, in relation to a trade union, meansthe recognition of the union by an
employer forthe purpose of collective bargaining (Hutchinson 1994).
Trade union recognition
How does a ‘non-union’ company differ from a company which recognises trade
unions?
There is of course no such thing as a typical ‘union’ or ‘non-union’ company.
However, employers who do not recognise trade unions will usually:
• deal directly with workers who have employee relations problems. So, workers
who have grievances will raise them directly with the managers concerned*
*Workers have the right to be accompanied by a colleague or by a trade
union official if they have a grievance or if they are subject to disciplinary
action. This right applies to all organisations – non union as well as union.
• determine increases in pay or other terms and conditions of employment for a
group of workers without negotiating with a trade union representative
• set up an employee or works council to inform and consult with workers. Such a
body will not normally negotiate terms and conditions of employment or be
‘independent’ of the employer
Employers who recognise trade unions:
• will negotiate with representatives of a trade union who act on behalf of their members
to get improvements on pay and other terms and conditions of employment through the
process of collective bargaining.
• will give representatives of the trade union paid time off to carry out their union duties
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
Matsikidze (2013) define collective bargaining as a process that involves negotiation,
consultation and the exchange of information pertaining to conditions of service
between employers and workers, the end objective being a collective agreement that is
mutually owned by the parties. For Mucheche (2014) collective bargaining is a process
of negotiation between employers and a group of employees aimed at reaching
agreements that regulate working conditions.

Gwisai (2006) defines it as a voluntary process for reconciling the conflicting interests
and aspirations of management and labour through the joint regulation of terms and
conditions of employment.
The result of negotiation is referred to as collective bargaining agreement and it
functions as a labour contract between an employer and one or more unions.The
rationale for collective bargaining is to resolve conflicts at the organization since conflict
is inherent.
It is called collective because the employees, as a group, select representatives to meet
and discuss differences with the employer.
Parties to Collective Bargaining Process
 trade unions

 employers' organisations

 workers committee- section 23 of the Labour Act (Chapter 28:01)

 management

 Managerial workers committee- section 23(the Labour Act.)

PROTECTION OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

Article 23 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights identifies the ability to organise
trade unions as a fundamental human right
Item 2(a) of the International Labour Organisation’s Declaration on Fundamental
Principles and Rights at work defines a freedom of association and the effective
recognition of the right to collective bargaining as an essential right of workers
The constitution of Zimbabwe section 24 deals with work and labour relations and
section 65 deals with labour rights
Section 2A (1) (c) of the Labour Act
Section 23 of the Labour Act
Sections 74-82 of the Labour Act
ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION

Determining working conditions and terms of employment.

Regulating relations between employers and workers

Regulating relationships between employers or their organisation and a worker’s

organisation
Collective agreements usually set out-Wage scales, working hours,training, health and
safety, overtime, grievance mechanisms, right to participate in workplace or company
affairs

PURPOSE OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

Establishes industrial justice

Allows workers to participate in decisions that affect them.

Ensures that no arbitrary behaviour is imposed and no unrealistic demands are made
on them

CONDITIONS NEEDED FOR EFFECTIVE CB

Recognition of divergent interests of employers and employees.

Recognition of the need for equilibrium of power between the two parties

Recognition of the philosophy of mutual survival

Elimination of direct and indirect obstacles to effective CB

Characteristics

1. It is a 2 way process ie a method of partnership of workers in management.

2. It is a continuous process .It establishes regular and stable relationship between
the parties involved. It involves not only the negotiation of the contract, but also
the administration of the contract.
3. It is a collective process. The representatives of both workers and management
participate in bargaining. It is a group or collective action as opposed to individual
action. It is initiated through the representatives of the employees
4. It is a flexible and dynamic process. The parties have to adopt a flexible attitude
through the process of bargaining.
5. It is not a competitive process rather it is essentially a complementary process.
6. It is a voluntary process without any third-party intervention. Both workers and
management voluntarily participate in the negotiations, discuss and arrive at a
solution. That is why it is known as a bipartite process where workers’
representatives and management get an opportunity for clear, face-to-face
communication.
 7. It ensures industrial democracy at the workplace; it is a self-run government in
action.

CB AS A KEY COMPONENT OF EMPLOYEE RELATIONS

CB is a significant part of employee relations

Hyman (1997) describes CB as a “hollow shell” and argues that the only reason why
some employers offer better conditions than those negotiated by unions in CBAs is so
that they remain “union free”

Collective Bargaining is concerned with substantive issues (what is determined) and

procedural issues (how the decisions are made.

CORE ISSUES IN CB AS PER LABOUR ACT

Parties should negotiate in good faith

Employer has a duty to disclose once the inability to pay is alleged.

Parties shall be represented by committees and agents.

CBAs should be registered

Amendment by Minister if CBA is inconsistent with the Labour Act

Existence of CBA may not preclude employer from giving higher rates than those
agreed

GLOBALISATION INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS AND ENTERPRISE BARGAINING

Globalization has led employers to push for less regulation of IR, less standardization of
the employment relationship, and a greater focus on the workplace as the centre of
gravity of IR.

Since productivity and quality have become major considerations in competitiveness,

the quality of the workforce and training have become critical factors
Employee skills have become important determinants not only of flexibility, productivity
and quality, but also of employability, investment and the ability to rapidly adapt to
market changes.
Shifting the focus of collective bargaining from the nation/industry level to the enterprise
level. Employers are of the view that issues relevant to the employment relationship
such as work re-organization, flexible working hours and contractual arrangements, and
pay for performance and skills, are increasingly workplace-related, and should therefore
be addressed at the enterprise level.

Employees who are engaged in their work and committed to their organizations give
companies crucial competitive advantages—including higher productivity and lower
employee turnover.

It also results inemployees’ satisfaction with their work and pride in their employer, the
extent to which people enjoy and believe in what they do for work and the perception
that their employer values what they bring to the table.

APPROACHES TO COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

Most labour negotiations still employ positional or distributive bargaining.

In this process, the respective parties adopt positions or table demands at opposing
ends of the negotiating spectrum, whittling down their demands in an effort to negotiate
into an area of common ground. There is a lot of haggling and cajoling.
The parties are often forced to defend their positions
According to Hofmeyer (2012) two chefs are said to have fought over the use of the
single orange left in the kitchen. Both needed the orange for their recipes. Each chef
unsuccessfully tried to convince the other to give up his half share of the orange. They
then agreed to split the orange in half.

This resulted in one chef being left with juice of half an orange while the other had only
the rind of his half of the same orange – neither had the volume needed for their
respective recipes. Had each party tried to understand what the other needed, they
would have realised that the one needed the juice of a whole orange while the other
need only the rind of one orange. They could have given each other exactly what they
needed without having to compromise on their own needs.

CB IN ZIMBABWE

Companies abrogating all issues to NEC putting a heavy burden on them. Not willing to
take responsibility
NEC wages can be heavy for some organisations – Application for Exemptions not very
easy
Lack of clearly articulated productivity goals for industries and at enterprise level
Adversarial approach at wage negotiations
Training on negotiation techniques at NEC levels
Training and Development and skills development for staff before asking for productivity
– productivity cannot be viewed in a vacuum

PRODUCTIVITY BARGAINING

The process of reaching an agreement (productivity agreement) through collective

bargaining whereby the employees of an organization agree to changes which are
intended to improve productivity in return for an increase in pay or other benefits
(Collins Dictionary)

Pay to be linked to productivity

CHALLENGES TO PRODUCTIVITY BARGAINING IN ZIMBABWE

Capacity utilisation issues – lack of capital to purchase equipment which will enhance
productivity

Lack of clarity in some organisation on productivity benchmarks which will translate into
clear targets for employees

Suspicion from employees of changing goal posts by employers as they control the
means of production

Composition – quality of some people involved in the Collective Bargaining process

Lack of training of negotiators

Narrowing of discussion issues at Collective bargaining to just salaries

Problems of Collective Bargaining

 There is multiplicity of unions which are weak and unstable and do not
represent the majority of the employees.Moreover, there are inter-union
rivalries, which further hinder the process of collective bargaining between
labour and management.
 Unions are dominated by politicians, since most of the unions have
political affiliations and they use these unions and their members to meet
their political ends.
 There has been a very close association between the trade unions and
political parties. As a result, trade unions have leaned towards political
orientations rather than collective bargaining. Collective bargaining has
collapsed mainly due to the crisis period of 1997 – 2008, a period characterized
by:
 State repression and restrictive laws like POSA
  State interference in court of law procedures, since some disputes were labeled
political.
 Delays in delivering judgments by courts of law
 Reliance on the courts rather than CB means the system has collapsed
 A weak and fragmented trade union movement has also led to collapse of CB as
they fail to confront the employers
 Hyperinflation (pre 2008) and the impact of the financial crisis that affected most
quarters of the world economies
 CB is also hard in a de industrializing economy where rate of unemployment is
more than 90%
 CB in Zimbabwe seems to be mainly centred more on wage negotiation
currently.

BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

Lack of utmost good faith in negotiations
 Material non disclosure of the financial status of the company
 Lack of training on techniques for collective bargaining
 Hard bargaining or positional bargaining
 Turf war between trade unions, employees and workers’ committees
 Lack of authority on the part of those who participate in the collective bargaining
agreement with a leash tied around their waist.
 Force of emotions as opposed to reason and commonsense
 Polarisation
 Intimidation and dirty tactics
 Mindset to disagree and refer a matter for compulsory arbitration
 Failure to grasp the essence of alternative dispute resolution methods like
conciliation and mediation.

STRIKES AND INDUSTRIAL ACTION

Basically, strikes and other forms of industrial action are an inherentpart of collective
bargaining and, by extension, of labour relations ingeneral. Strikes are the ultimate
“weapon of power” that may be usedby labour against employers (if necessary). You
may regard strikes ascompletely unnecessary, many workers may have taken part in
strikesthemselves; and yet others may have had to deal with a striking labour force.
Whatever is the case, strikes (and other forms of industrialaction) are an issue which
many people find easy to identify. Strikes arehighly visual events, and people usually
know from media coveragewhen a prominent strike is in progress.Due to the fact that
one cannot always be certain that negotiations(collective bargaining) will be “free” of
serious labour conflict, it isnecessary to develop a good understanding of strikes and
other forms ofindustrial action. From a management viewpoint, strikes are a
veryimportant issue. In this study unit, therefore, the emphasis falls on the management
of strikes as a form of industrial action.
Definition of a Strike
A strike is termed as the partial or complete, concerted refusal to work,or the retardation
or obstruction of work, by persons who are or havebeen employed by the same
employer, or by different employers, for thepurpose of remedying a grievance or
resolving a dispute in respect ofany matter of mutual interest between employer and
employee.According to Akubuiro (2003), in terms of incidence of strike, there area host
of strikes such as:
i. Official strike: - this refers to all strikes which are approved bythe union.
ii. Unofficial strike: - which as the name indicates, refers to thestrike not sanctioned by
the union executives but initiatedespecially by the shop stewards.
iii. Unconstitutional strike: - this refers to all strikes caused by theunion leaders but are
in breach of the constitution or did notfollow legal procedures.
iv. Work to rule: - this indicates that the workers still report to work,do some routine
assignment but do not exceed the normal timefor work
v. Dealing with equipment: - this means that workers cannibalizethe major work tools
thus making work impossible.
In terms of the costs of strike, the following areas are affected:
i. Number of man hours lost
ii. Loss of business
iii. Disruption of operations
iv. Dampening of the workers morale
v. Enmity created between management and workers
vi. Goodwill and image of the company destroyed
vii. Loss of valued customers
viii. Distortion in the projected earnings
ix. Loss of output
x. Loss of sales and revenue
xi. Payment of Compensation to customers
xii. Loss of competent employees.
Types and Forms of Strike or Industrial Action
The types and forms of a strike are often the result of the cause of astrike. There are
many types or forms of industrial action, and these canbe classified according to their
different approaches or structures.
Common types or forms of industrial action include the following.
1. The Wildcat Strike
This type of strike occurs suddenly and is not preceded by any notice orintensive
negotiations. It can assume various forms;
2. The Go-Slow Strike
Here, employees perform their work, but at a snail’s pace. They workstrictly according
to the rules, and sometimes even slower. They thusrefuse to maintain normal
production rates and volumes;
3. The Solidarity Strike
In the case of the solidarity strike, employees at one plant or companystop work in
solidarity with other employees who wish to enforce ademand made on their employers;
4. The Rotating Strike
Here, groups of employees at different plants or in different departmentsor sections take
turns to stop work according to a set pattern;
5. The Boycott
In the case of a boycott, labour is not necessarily withheld, butemployees bring
pressure to bear by way of other drastic action. Forexample, in the case of an overtime
ban; employees refuse to workovertime. Production boycotts involve mainly trade union
members andtheir families who stand together and refuse to buy the products
(orservices) produced by the employer;
6. Picketing
This is a form of demonstration of power. Employees and/or theirrepresentatives form
groups inside or outside the workplace and stateclearly that they are dissatisfied about
something. Picket lines areusually a peaceful way in which striking workers make public
(andadvertise) their industrial action with the purpose of encouraging othersto join them.
Workers normally stand in front of their workplace withplacards. In addition, they try to
convince suppliers and customers notto enter the premises.It is important that a labour
relations manager is familiar with thevarious types of industrial action so that he or she
can decide how suchaction should be managed
THE RIGHT TO STRIKE
There is a raging debate on whether workers have a right to strike or not and whether it
is a human right or not.
Justification
The right to strike has been defended as a fundamental human right just like the right to
life,liberty and other common human rights. But this has been resisted because of a
strike’s coercive nature and delictual consequences as there is no other right exists for
the explicit purpose of forcing others to do what they do not want to do.It has been
justified on the grounds of democracy. It has also been justified because of the
‘equilibrium’ argument. It is argued that the withdrawal of labour acts as the only
effective countervailing force to the power of capital(management) to hire and fire. The
right to strike is seen as creating an equilibrium in labour relations which is seen as
essential for the establishment of a properly functioning industrial relations system. It
facilitates collective bargaining as it acts as ‘the sanction that impels the parties to
bargain collectively.’

There is no ILO Convention which deals specifically with the right to strike. ILO
Conventions, No 87(On Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to
Organise) and 98(On the right to Organise and Collective Bargaining) do not make any
specific reference to the right to strike. However, the right to strike is derived from the
concept of Freedom of Association as enshrined in Conventions 87 and 98 holding that
the right to strikeis’an intrinsic corollary to the right to organize protected by Convention
No 87’ and the right to strike is ‘a legitimate means… through which workers may
promote and defend their economic and social interests’. However,ILO jurisprudence is
clear that this right is not absolute and certain restrictions have been admitted. In the
interest of public order, security, safety and health certain derogations are allowed.For
example,ILO recognizes two restrictions in respect of the public service and in essential
services.In respect of civil servants ILO recognizes prohibition of top civil servants only
and on essential services ILO accepts that strikes may be prohibited or restricted but it
insists on the provision of compensatory mechanisms such as reference of disputes to
compulsory arbitration.

Right to strike in Zimbabwe

The constitution of Zimbabwe is the supreme law of the country and any law which is
inconsistent is devoid.Zimbabwean law recognizes all form of strikes that entail partial
strikes,secondary strikes and protest action.It is entrenched in the fundamental bill of
rights in terms of the constitution of Zimbabwe. Enactment of section 65 of the
Constitution of Zimbabwe allows workers to go on strike. However, the only permissible
constitutional derogation from the right to strike is in respect of essential services. It only
applies in respect of disputes of interest and not a dispute of right.There is no automatic
right to refer a dispute of interest to arbitration for other employees other than those in
essential service where it is preemptory that once a certificate of no settlement is issued
after an impasse in conciliation, the dispute should be referred to compulsory
arbitration. Those who offer essential services are not allowed to go on collective job
action. In terms of section 102(b) an essential service is defined as any service the
interruption of which endangers immediately the life, personal safety or health of the
whole or any part of the public and that is declared by notice in the gazette made by the
minister after consultation with the appropriate advisory council; and these include fire
brigade /services employees, electricity employees, veterinary services, health services,
transport and communication etc.

NB

In terms of section (3) of S.I 137 of 2003 “any non-essential service maybe declared as
an essential service by the minister if a strike in a sector ,industry or enterprise persist
to a point that lives, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population is
endangered. Thus, the problem with this sector is that there is no independent
committee to determine what constitute essential services as the Minister is given an
open cheque to do so.

 Restrictions are placed on members of the army, police and prisons as well as
civil servants.

 It is prohibited to go on collective job action to redress a dispute of right. It is a

right to which a party is entitled to by law, by contract, by agreement. Disputes of
right are settled by legal arbitration and not by negotiation.

 It is also prohibited where the dispute has been referred to arbitration whether
voluntary or compulsory.

 Unregistered trade unions and employers’ organizations are prohibited from

recommending or engage in collective job action.
  Collective job action is permissible even in an essential service in order to avoid
any occupational hazard and in defense of an immediate threat to the existence
of a workers committee or a registered trade union.
 The new constitution demolished the artificial divide between public and private
sector employees and extends the right to strike to both private and public sector
employees.

Limitations on the right to strike

 It should be a dispute of interest. A dispute of interest is that to which a party is

not yet entitled but to which he would like it to become entitled thus interests are
subject to collective bargaining or negotiation. Once an agreement has been
reached the interest sought becomes a right.
 An attempt to resolve the dispute through conciliation should have been made
and a certificate of no settlement issued. The conciliation process can last from a
period ranging from 30 days to a period ad infinitum if the conciliation is
extended.
 The conciliator may refer the dispute for arbitration and once referred for
compulsory arbitration, the door for the right to strike is firmly closed.
 Give advance notice i.e., a 14 days’ notice to the party against whom the action
is taken, to the employment council and the appropriate trade union or
employers’ organisation or federation stating grounds for going on action. In
South Africa and Namibia, for example, only 48 hours’ notice is required.
 More than 50% of the workers must vote by secret ballot in the presence of a
labour officer or TU official for a strike and this will be followed by 30 day
conciliation period and the possibility of binding arbitration.
 Before embarking on collective job action they need to get union approval from a
registered union or employer organization.
 Furthermore, employees cannot engage in collective job action if there is a union
agreement restriction.
 The minister has the power to terminate, postpone or suspend any strike action
by issuing a show cause order. One can appeal to the labourcourt after the
issuance of the show cause order but the appeal itself does not suspend the
decision appealed against that such that this purported remedy becomes hollow
and academic.

RIGHT TO STRIKE IN THE PUBLIC SERVICE

Workers in the public service are not covered by the Labour Act Cap 28:01.
Government workers have their terms and conditions of employment regulated by a
mechanism set up by the constitution.The constitution creates two main groups of
government workers.The first group is called the Public Service which is administered
by the Civil Service Commission operating in terms of the Public Service Act.The
second group consists of other special groups outside the Civil Service such as the
police,the army, the prison service and the judiciary and these are governed by specific
Acts of Parliament enjoined by the Constitution. There is no right to strike in the Civil
Service. For the uniformed forces its unthinkable to go on strike as going on strike in the
police force may constitute several offences such as desertion, insubordination or ‘being
absent without leave’.The blanket ban on strike action in the civil service is not in
tandem with ILO jurisprudence. The constitution allows part of the civil servants to go
collective job action and there is need for alignment of the Public Service Act with the
Constitution.

Rights of persons on lawful collective job action

 Protection from discipline and dismissal

 Immunity from civil liability-this is important because reprisals can instill fear in
the victims and thus burying the right to strike.
 right to remuneration in kind-where his remuneration includes payment in kind by
way of accommodation, the provision of food and other basic amenities of life,
the worker is entitled to continue receiving these during the strike but wages are
excluded.
 right not to be interdicted
 right not to be replaced by scab labor
 right to picket

RIGHT TO STRIKE IN SADC

The SADC Charter of Fundamental Social Rights provides for the right to strike. The
constitution of South Africa fully guarantees the right to strike but restrictions are
imposed on those employees who are in essential services.Government workers are
allowed to go strike. Both private and public servants can go on strike after giving a 48
hour notice. In Malawi, Zambia and Namibia government employees are granted the
right to collective bargaining and a right to strike.The constitution of Malawi does not
have an express right to strike but simply makes reference to fair labour practices and
to fair remuneration.The Zambian constitution does not provide for the right to strike but
there are certain provisions thereof than can be stretched to provide basis for a strike.In
Botswana, the right to strike is a fundamental right entrenched in the Constitution.

THIRD PARTY DISPUTE RESOLUTION

Matsikidze(2013) defines ADR as a range of procedures that serve as alternatives to
litigation through the Courts for resolutions of disputes;generally involving the
intercession and assistance of a neutral third party.
Conciliation

It is an act of procuring good will and results in the parties reaching an agreement
themselves. The parties are encouraged to try to find solution themselves. The
conciliator leaves the parties to come to their own solution rather than to try to persuade
them to any particular choice. Conciliation is an alternative out-of-court dispute
resolution instrument. It is a voluntary, flexible, confidential, and interest based process.
The parties seek to reach an amicable dispute settlement with the assistance of the
conciliator, who acts as a neutral third party.
Conciliation is a voluntary proceeding, where the parties involved are free to agree and
attempt to resolve their dispute by conciliation. The process is flexible, allowing parties
to define the time, structure and content of the conciliation proceedings. These
proceedings are rarely public. They are interest-based, as the conciliator will when
proposing a settlement, not only take into account the parties' legal positions, but also
their; commercial, financial and / or personal interests.

 Conciliation ensures party autonomy. The parties can choose the timing,
language, place, structure and content of the conciliation proceedings.
 Conciliation ensures the expertise of the decision maker. The parties is free
to select their conciliator. A conciliator does not have to have a specific
professional background. The parties may base their selection on criteria such
as; experience, professional and / or personal expertise, availability, language
and cultural skills. A conciliator should be impartial and independent.
 Conciliation is time and cost efficient. Due to the informal and flexible nature
of conciliation proceedings, they can be conducted in a time and cost-efficient
manner.
 Conciliation ensures confidentiality. The parties usually agree on
confidentiality. Thus, disputes can be settled discretely and business secrets will
remain confidential.

ARBITRATION

Matsikidze(2013) defines it as a private mechanism for the resolution of disputes which

takes place in private pursuant to an agreement between two or more parties, under
which the parties agree to be bound by the decision to be given by the arbitrator
according to law after a fair hearing, such decision being enforceable at law.
Key Arbitration Principles
Parties may agree to the choice of arbitrator
The parties the dispute present their case and evidence to the arbitrator
The arbitrator makes a determination/decision or an award
The parties to the dispute are bound by the arbitrator’s decision
 The Arbitration Act (cap 7:02) provides a general framework for voluntary
arbitration, the provisions of the Act also cover arbitration done under the L A
 There is voluntary and compulsory arbitration. In voluntary arbitration the parties
choose the arbitrator and in compulsory arbitration the arbitrator is appointed by
the conciliator from the Ministry Panel
 Under Compulsory Arbitration an aggrieved party appeals to the Labour Court
but only on a question of law. Under voluntary arbitration a party makes an
application for review to the High Court in terms of the specified grounds under
the Arbitration Act.There are two remedies or recourses against an arbitral award
and these are Review and Appeal.Review applications deals with the procedural
issues in most cases and the processes which were done before coming up with
 an award.Any violation with regard to the processes or procedures followed to
come up with a decision may result in the award being set aside.The grounds for
review must be brief and precise.The reviewable issues are as provided for in
terms of SI27 of the high court Act and these among other issues involves issues
of capacity,notice adequacy, breach of natural justice rules, dealing with issues
outside the terms of reference, failure to consult parties in coming up with terms
of reference,Arbitral exceeding powers impartiality, bias, refusing parties
procedural rights etc.Appeals lies with the Labour Court.S98 (10) of the Labour
Act provides that an appeal on a question of law shall lie with the Labour court
from the decision of any arbitrator.Labour court is on point of law not facts.When
dealing with an appeal, theLabour Court does so in terms of S89(2) (a).Labour
court can conduct a hearing into the matter (hearing denovo).It can decide the
matter on record. IT can confirm, vary or set aside the decision or order or action
appealed against
 The appointment of arbitrators under Compulsory arbitration is done by the
conciliator or Labour Court. Arbitrators are appointed by the Minister after
consultation with the senior President of the court. In voluntary arbitration the
parties themselves decide who will be the arbitrator. It is advisable for the parties
to draw up an agreement on the appointment and Terms of Reference of the
arbitrator including the period within which s/he must conclude proceedings and
the procedure to follow in case of deadlock.

THE AWARD
There is no universal formulae for writing of an arbitral award.However, there are certain
essentials that must be covered.Each award must address the following:
1)What issues arise? The issues emanate from the nature of dispute of the dispute and
matter referred to the arbitrator
2) What is the law applicable to the issues? This refers to the various areas of law which
are relevant to the issues
3) Apply the law to the facts. At this stage, use the law to answer the issues. What
specific answer does the law give to the issue of issues.
4) What is the final result? Or How is the dispute then resolved? What is the
conclusion?
The general rule applicable to arbitral awards is that an award is final and can only be
set aside on very limited grounds provided for in article 34 of the model law. With labour
matters governed by the Labour Act, there is an appeal available on ‘a point of law’. The
Act does not define a point of law.The courts have defined it so widely as to make it
easy to challenge arbitral awards in labour matters. In labour matters the courts have
defined a ‘point of law’ to cover not only issues on what the law is but also aspects
where there is a serious misdirection of facts.It has been held that a serious
misdirection on the facts raises a point of law. See Hama v NRZ 1996(1) ZLR 641.A
serious misdirection on the facts occurs where the decision is irrational- where the
finding on the facts is so outrageous in its defiance of logic that no sensible person will
have applied his or her mind to the facts could have arrived at such a decision.An
irrational finding on the facts is a question of law.The irrationality ground provides a
warning to arbitrators. An arbitrator must make every effort to give reasons for his or her
conclusions on the facts. Every step must be taken with sensitivity to a possible attack
based on irrationality.In arbitrations covered by the Arbitration Act, that is arbitral
awards in labour matters not covered by the Labour Act.Article 34 does not provide for
an appeal.It provides for an application for the setting aside of an award.The grounds
are only those stipulated in article 34.It is not permissible to challenge an award outside
the grounds in article 34.However,article 34 has a ground that allows a challenge on the
basis that the award ‘is contrary to public policy’. See ZESA v Maposa 1999
Structure of an Award
There is no specified structure of an award.The structure must be determined by the
arbitrator but special attention must be paid to the general practice in the jurisdiction.
Some of the relevant guidelines are;
Background/introduction
Issues in dispute
Summary of the Evidence where facts are in dispute
Arguments of the parties must be split into Applicants and Respondent’s argument
Analysis of the evidence
Analysis of arguments
The arbitrator’s Conclusion and view
Determination/ The Award

GLOBALISATION
 Globalisation can be defined as a process of increasing global connectivity,
integration and interdependence in the economic, social, technological, cultural,
political and institutional spheres.
 Globalisation refers, for instance, to the processes that reduce barriers between
countries and involve greater integration in world markets, thus increasing the
pressure for assimilation towards international standards (Macdonald 1997;
Frenkel and Peetz 1998; Ali 2005).
Theeconomic aspects of globalisation
  intensifying economic competition among nations,
 rapidly expanding international trade and financial flows and foreign direct
investment (FDI) by multinational corporations (MNCs),
 disseminating advanced management practices and newer forms of work
organisation and in some cases
 sharing of internationally recognisedlabour standards
 Increase in the migration of labour
 increasing integration of global economic activities,
 rising competitiveness,
 relocation of economic activities,
 structural changes in the economy,
 rapid technological advancements and innovation.
 Globalisation has obviously contributed to rising unemployment (through
the introduction of technology) increasing casual employment (For
example, road construction, buildings etc in Mozambique) and weakening
labour movements (Ali 2005).

Globalisation and labour market effects

 flexibilisation of labour markets;
 increasing labour migration;
 rising atypical and non-standard forms of employment;
 changes in work content and working conditions;
 Skills mismatch, multi-skilling and the need for lifelong learning.
 Due to growing competitiveness, many countries are obliged to relax their
employment protection mechanisms in order to increase their labour market
flexibility. Therefore, a new balance between labour market flexibility and social
protection will have to be established (HM Treasury 2005).
 Several countries propose labour market reforms as a way of coping with the
challenges of flexibilisation while providing an adequate level of job and
employment security.
 Overall, employment rates are increasing, but non-standard forms of work such
as part-time, fixed-term and self-employment are also rising.
 Broad social developments in many countries have also led to an increasing
participation rate of women in the labour market which, in turn, has augmented
the demand for atypical forms of employment.
 As a result of these developments, working conditions do not improve for a lot of
workers while their job security may decline
 The problem in developing countries relates to underemployment and disguised
unemployment.
 The majority of developed countries face serious labour and skill shortages which
threaten their sustainability of economic growth, productivity performance and
international competitiveness
 The temporary employment of foreign workers introduces flexibility into the
labour market while also increasing competition between foreign and domestic
labour with varying implications for the countries sending and receiving workers.
  Another area of enterprise activity to be affected by globalisation concerns the
organisation of work.
 To achieve the flexibility and productive efficiency required to respond quickly
and effectively to market changes, the need arises to reorganise work; for
example, to put greater emphasis on team-based activities or to improve
connections across business units within a company
 Globalisation affects employment relations and industrial relations at regional,
national and international levels

Globalisation and IR in developing countries
 Developing countries are facing further population growth and a labour
surplus. At least over the next 20-30 years, these countries will have a
relative advantage over the more developed countries assuming they are
able to control labour costs, since most of the labour intensive production will
be concentrated in these countries and their neighbouring regions

Globalisation and IR in Developed countries
 Labour shortages
 Economic communities and borderless countries to meet labour
requirements
 Open to immigration of experienced individuals
Globalisation has a contradictory impact on industrial relations:
 On the one hand, it is accelerating economic interdependence between countries
on an intraregional and interregional basis and encouraging similar business
approaches of individual companies in competitive markets. This may lead to
some convergence in industrial relations arrangements worldwide.
 On the other hand, evidence exists that industrial relations in some countries
resist the convergence trend; such resistance from industrial relations actors is
based on particular national and regional circumstances, such as in Europe and
Asia (Macdonald 1997).
The effect of globalisation on industrial relations procedures and their substantive
outcomes depends on the conditions under which industrial relations take place
within a country. For instance, the pressure for greater flexibility in the use of labour
is omnipresent, but the outcome is constrained by cultural norms, valuing, hierarchy
and security. Countries’ IR strategies vary due to historical circumstances, resources
and internal political dynamics, including the influence of trade unions. Thus, the
extent and impact of globalisation differs between countries, resulting in similar
concerns for policymakers yet leading to variable responses and industrial relations
outcomes (Frenkel and Peetz 1998)
 Globalisation is regarded as a pressure that comes from ‘outside’ the country.
 Since globalisation is portrayed as emanating from the outside, it is
frequently reduced to a small number of relatively discrete changes or trends
which, like other transformations in the industrial relations environment,
represent challenges to or pressures on national industrial relations systems
and institutions
WOMEN AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

 The label 'industrial relations' carries connotations associated with male-

dominated heavy industry, trade unions, and strikes. The dominant
masculine construction of industrial relations has contributed to the
invisibility of gender and equality. While this traditional understanding of
industrial relations is less widespread today, as a field of study it still
commonly neglects gender, women's and equality issues (Forrest, 1993;
Greene, 2002; Hansen, 2002; Wacjman, 2000).
 Women are less powerful than men in most situations, they are less
represented by unions, and they are more vulnerable to personal
pressure from their employer. They argue their workplace treatment from
a much weaker position than most men.
 Women had less effective access to enterprise bargaining to increase
their wages and conditions because of the following:

a) They were concentrated in mediocre work, often at the bottom of employment

hierarchies in many workplaces.
b) They were concentrated in a narrow range of industries and in relatively few
occupations. This means that they rarely got a seat at the workplace
bargaining table--whether representing employees or employers. They are
less unionised than their working brothers and severely under-represented
amongst union workplace,
c) Women are socialised to be quieter, to ask for less and to stand back for
men. They are consequently less likely to play an active part because, much
more than men, they are fearful of the employer or supervisor's opposition--
and many fear for their jobs.
 d) women have more responsibility on the domestic front which makes them
more willing to accept bad treatment lower wages, and gives them less time
for workplace involvement beyond their jobs

Further structural barriers to women’s access to social and economic rights include:

a) women’s responsibilities for child-caring and the elderly; women’s

unpaid work in the home and in family concerns;
b) the undervaluation of women’s work;
c) lack of access to credit or social security;
d) lack of appropriate education or training, violence against women in
the public space, the workplace and in the home;
e) stereotypes which are prejudicial to women.
- Discrimination, unequal pay, inflexible working conditions and limited access to
training and promotion are important issues for women in IR.

WOMEN’S RIGHTS IN ZIMBABWE

- In order to address the gender imbalances prevailing in industrial set-ups, our
government in particular saw the need to put in place some legal interventions
through the Labour Act Chapter 28:01
- A number of legislative measures were brought up in order to recognise and
protect women in industrial relations
a) Protection of employees against discrimination
o Section 5(1) of the Labour Act provides for non-discrimination “against any
employee or prospective employee on grounds…….gender,
pregnancy….” was included in the Act in order to provide strong protection
on women in employment relationship. Discrimination on the basis of
discrimination is unlawful see Wazara v Principal Belvedere Teachers’
college the court held that discrimination against women on the basis of
pregnancy was unlawful
o To further advance favour to female employees, section 5(7)(a)(1) “….no
person shall be deemed to have discriminated against another person on
 the grounds of gender or pregnancy where – in accordance with this Act
or any other law, he provides special conditions for employees…..”.
o Also in the same section, 5(2a), though it was already industry practice,
the government wanted to re-affirm its position of being sensitive to
women by providing that “No employer shall fail to pay equal remuneration
to male and female employees for work of equal value”, (i.e. no gender
differentiation for work of equal value)
b) Sexual harassment (unfair labour practice by employer)
On section 8(h) outlines that “….an employer or any other person, commits
an unfair labour practice if by act or omission engages in unwelcome
sexually-determined behaviour towards an employee, whether verbal or
otherwise, such as making physical contact or advances, or sexually-coloured
remarks, or displaying pornographic material in the workplace”. (added in
2003 amendment… mouthful.. some snr managers seem to see as a
perk of their position the pick of a junior female staff even though the
lady concerned has no interest in a relationship at all)
Though it is not express, it is quite apparent that this clause is meant to curb
sexual harassment which was being perpetuated on women by male bosses.
In the Mudzingwa v One Stop the Supreme Court held that the conduct of
the appellant towards the female employees whilst under the influence of
alcohol amounted to sexual harassment. In the public service, in terms of
section 4 of the Public service Regulations SI 1 of 200, First Schedule
(Section 2) sexual harassment is an act of misconduct which attracts a
penalty of dismissal from the public service.

c) Provision of maternity leave

 Gwisai posits that workplaces are conditioned by the assumption that the
typical worker does not get pregnant and has no childcare responsibilities.
 The Labour Act section 18(1) provides for maternity leave on full pay for
a female employee who has served for one year and above.
 In 2003, subsection (2) was amended to provide that maternity leave will
be on full pay, but to be unpaid in the first year of service.
 From December 2005 subsection (4) which provided for unpaid maternity
leave in the first year of service was repealed.
 Maternity leave days were increased from 90 to 98 (in line with the 14
weeks in line with an ILO convention). In South Africa, under the Basic
Conditions of Employment Act of 1997 female employees are entitled to 4
months maternity leave. Furthermore, the employee is not allowed to work
for 6 weeks after the birth of the child unless a doctor or midwife certifies
that one is fit for work.
 If there is a miscarriage or have a stillborn child the female employee is
entitled to 6 weeks maternity leave.
 Benefit of fully paid maternity leave is limited to a maximum of 3 periods
with respect to her total service with one employer.
 Paid maternity leave will be granted at 24 months interval. Any maternity
leave outside this scope will be unpaid.
 Subsection (7) provides that all benefits, including accumulation of service
towards seniority, continue during maternity leave.
 The employer cannot suspend any of female employee’s rights due to
pregnancy or maternity leave.
 Breast feeding period for 6 months period is also provided for. Female
employee is entitled to one hour or 2 half hour periods each day for
breastfeeding the baby.
 Any person who contravenes this provision shall be guilty of an
unfair labour practice.
 However, this provision has now been supplanted by the new
constitution of Zimbabwe which provides an open cheque in the
form of fully paid maternity leave for at least 3 months to any female
employee despite the duration of service with a particular employer.
Furthermore, there is no longer a limit of the number of times a
 female employee can go on fully paid maternity leave with any given
employer (Mucheche).

 However, though they are basking in the glory of legislative protection as

provided for by the Labour Act, the reality on the ground shows otherwise.
 Discrimination of women is being practiced in a tacit and subtle manner to the
extent that it cannot be seen by a naked eye.
 A lot more work needs to be done to ensure that any form of discrimination
against women is practically eliminated.