Every individual has the right to work with dignity, regardless of their gender or sex, race,

tribe, geographical place of origin, socio-political, legal and/or economic status. To this end
the international conventions and norms are of great significance in not only protecting this
recognised basic human right but in the formulation of standards to ensure employees work
with dignity. It is axiomatic that being able to provide a balance to the demands of the worker
while at work and finding new and better ways to manage people, time, space and workloads
effectively is crucial. In order to not only protect the right to work with dignity but to find
better ways to manage people’s work effectively, several means, such as collective
bargaining and the judiciary can be put into service. The paper evaluates the legal framework
for collective bargaining (both domestic and international) and shows the legal challenges
parties may face in applying either the position or needs based approach for collective
bargaining.

Collective bargaining is a method where negotiation and compromise are resulted in

agreements, joint determination and regulation (Storey, 2005). In other words, the nature of
collective bargaining is a process where the interaction takes place between employers and
labour collective where liberal collectivist are favoured. Within Human Resource system a
process through which an employee and their representative persuade and take part in
decision making and collective bargaining is one the most frequently used mechanism.

The right to collectively bargain is recognized through international human rights

conventions. Article 23 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights identifies the ability to
organize trade unions as a fundamental human right. Item 2(a) of the International Labour
Organization's Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work defines the
"freedom of association and the effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining" as
an essential right of workers1. The Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to
Organise Convention, 1948 (C087) and several other conventions specifically protect
collective bargaining through the creation of international labour standards that discourage
countries from violating workers' rights to associate and collectively bargain.

____________________

1. International Labour Organization (1998). Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work. 86th Session: Geneva.

1
The work of the judiciary is of paramount importance to the protection of labour rights. A
competent, independent and impartial judiciary is important for the implementation of these
rights and the proper administration of justice. The judiciary aids in interpreting and applying
national constitutions and legislation in harmony with International Labour Standards (ILS)
and customary international law. It also clarifies ambiguity or uncertainty in domestic law
and develops the common law in light of the values and principles enshrined in international
human rights law.

According to Cabinet Office (2003) “The context of collective bargaining in the public
service in Zambia provides both opportunities and challenges. While on one hand collective
bargaining has existed from as far back as 1961 covering about 120,000 employees and is
supported by elaborate institutional arrangements and an industrial legal regime premised
on international labour standards, recent changes in the legal environment have entailed a
subtle replacement of a more pluralist industrial law with one that is highly ‘unitarist’.

The hallmark of this has been the redrawing of allowable and illegitimate industrial relations
practices and a redefinition of relations with trade unions. It has not, however, manifested in
any significant push to exclude trade unions were they have previously been recognized.
Much more frequent have been moves to: reverse the trend towards unionization of more
senior employees; recognizing and registering a multiplicity of unions within the public
sector, delaying processes of secondment letters for union officials elected into full-time
union office and reducing the range and scope of subjects and decisions covered by joint
employer employee determination.

In addition, the functionality of the collective bargaining process itself is not without critical
shortcomings. Notably, public service negotiations are governed by parameters laid down by
the Ministry of Finance within which the parties bargain. This has tended to often undermine
the true spirit of negotiations because fiscal parameters for negotiations have amounted to
imposing a wage ceiling cap in line with International Monetary Fund’s (IMF) expenditure
cut measures.

Grant aided institutions have also been capped by being compelled to negotiate within a five
(5) percent annual wage increase margin. Altogether, these moves and measures have tended
to undermine trade union rights in relation to organising and bargaining and calls for strategic
responses by the unions. The current response of the union has been to seek the intervention

2
of the head of state to relax the negotiation parameters set by the ministry of finance but this
option may not be sustainable in the long-run.

The decline in membership is also reflected in declining union density. Aggregate union
density in the public service showed a remarkable stability before 1993 (estimated at around
80 percent of membership), but there has since been a sharper fall from the midnineties.
Union density ranges between 35-97% across unions affiliated to the PSI in Zambia.

In terms of wage levels, it was established that across the public sector in Zambia, pay is
generally on the low side, averaging K1.9million (US$380) per month for CSAWUZ;
K2.8million (US$560) for UNZAWU; K0.9m (US$180) for NUPSW and K1.3million
(US$260) for ZULAWU members. The public sector average for all PSI affiliates, therefore,
was K1.7m (US$340) per month. The cost of a basic needs basket was recorded at K2.6m per
month (i.e.US$520) in June 2010. Evidently, public service workers earn wages that are
below the basic needs basket in Zambia. This disparity constitutes an action point for future
trade union actions and collective bargaining strategies. In the past, efforts to call for a
poverty datum line have been met with compelling cost-constraint arguments on the side of
the public sector employers. However, a case can be made to ensure that public sector wages
are reflective of the cost of living.

The framework for working conditions in the public service in Zambia are contained in the
handbook on “Terms and Conditions of Service for Public Service” issued in June
2003(Cabinet Office, 2003). These conditions also accord with those contained in the
employment act. The framework for working conditions in the public sector stipulates a 40-
hour week, leave provision and leave earning rates that range from 30 days to 42 days per
year depending on the employee’s salary scale; pensions contribution, and paid maternity
leave of up to 90 days, inter alia. Other conditions of service common across collective
agreements analysed for the public sector include: housing allowance, ranging between
K160,000 – K435,000 (i.e. US$32 – US$87) per month; rural hardship allowance, between
20-25 % of basic salary, retention and recruitment allowance of 20 % of basic salary and a
contributory medical aid scheme at the rate of 60% for the employer and 40 percent for the
employee. The challenge noticed in terms of conditions of employment was that these tended
to be static for longer periods. Essentially these was attributable to the Government’s
approach of wanting to fuse all non-flexible allowances into the basic salary – a move as

3
opposed by the unions who argued that these are better left as standalone in order to ensure
that their revision takes into account dynamic changes in the cost of living.

In terms of member participation in collective bargaining, all affiliates reported that they
involve members mainly in pre-negotiations and post-negotiation stages. This mainly
involves asking grassroots structures to hold consultative meetings with the general
membership. Once this is done, members’ inputs are then compiled at the branch level and
then submitted to the national committee which then synthesises these into consolidated
inputs. After signing the collective agreement, unions then embark on nationwide tours to
explain the content of the signed agreements. What seems to be missing, however, is a more
dynamic and effective approach that would ensure that members were made to feel a part of
the whole process from start to the end. There seemed to be a feeling among some sections of
the members that they were not adequately consulted on issues for bargaining, especially
women and the youth who felt that their issues were hardly put on the central agenda of
collective bargaining.

In terms of the Legal framework for collective bargaining and organising, the principle
industrial and labour relations law in Zambia is the Industrial and Labour Relations Act,
Chapter 269 of the laws of Zambia which, provides for the formation of trade unions and
employers’ organizations, the collective bargaining process and dispute settlement. Part VII
of the Industrial and Labour Relations Act clearly spells out the due process of collective
bargaining. The general rule and practice is that within a period of three months of
registration of a recognition agreement, the parties (in a bargaining unit) are under an
obligation to commence or carry out negotiations for a subsequent collective agreement.
Under section 64 of the said piece of legislation, it is also obligatory for an employer
employing twenty - five (25) or more eligible (unionisable) employees to enter into a
Recognition Agreement.

However, the industrial legal regime has seen some changes in the recent past. Up until the
1990s, changes to the legal undepinning of Zambia’s industrial relations were limited in
importance. The shift in the 1990s, however, was the replacement of a legislative regime that
mirrored the “pluralist” position by one that is highly “unitarist.” The hallmark of this has
been the redrawing of allowable and illegitimate industrial relations practices and a
redefinition of relations with trade unions. It has not, however, manifested in any significant
push to exclude trade unions were they have previously been recognized. This has been rarely

4
in the public sector. Much more frequent limitations for trade union organizing can be seen in
moves to reverse the trend towards unionization of more senior employees who are now
defined as management even if they do not management decisions.

In addition, the functionality of the collective bargaining process itself is not without critical
shortcomings. Notably, public service negotiations are governed by parameters laid down by
the Ministry of Finance within which the parties bargain. This has tended to often undermine
the true spirit of negotiations because fiscal parameters for negotiations have amounted to
imposing a wage ceiling cap in line with International Monetary Fund’s (IMF) expenditure
cut measures (Central Statistics Office, 2017).

Hence, there has been some difficulty in public sector bargaining, partly because of the subtle
attempt by government to impose a civil service wage bill cap actualized through an IMF -
inspired budgeting instrument called the Medium Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF).
Under this approach, the public sector wage bill is restricted to no more than 8 percent of the
Gross Domestic Product (GDP). This imperative has tended to undermine trade union rights
in relation to organising and bargaining and calls for strategic responses by the unions. The
current response of the union has been to seek the intervention of the head of state to relax the
negotiation parameters set by the ministry of finance but this option may not be sustainable in
the long-run. However, the biggest challenge has come from the unions themselves.

With splinter groups transforming into autonomous independent unions, there has not been a
united voice on the workers’ side (Verevis, 1994). For instance, the two new unions in the
ministries of agriculture and health have refused to remain within the existing bargaining
unit, opting instead to negotiate separately with employers. Also, except for the 2008 and
2010 round of negotiations, the three unions in the education sector had opted not to negotiate
jointly. The source of this problem, it seems, is internal to the unions, but it has created
serious instability and confusion in labour relations in the public sector.

Against this background, the author is of the view of the need for a more coordinated
approach to collective bargaining in the public sector. Unions must come together to form an
alliance to facilitate negotiations. Prior to commencement of public service collective
bargaining negotiations, unions holding consultations among themselves to harmonise their
claims and demands, and then allowing the most representative union to lead the negotiations
or having a rotation team leader arrangement; After group negotiations, a single collective
agreement would apply to all unionised public service workers; building the research and

5
analytical capacity of unions through economic literacy programmes such as capacity
building in basic economics and policy analysis.

In addition, Muneku (2017:76) adds that there is need of broadening the membership service
base in the public sector in Zambia. This is in ensuring that membership means the union
takes care of important things in the life of a member, such as health insurance, mortgage
facilitation and negotiated discounts on travel, hotel and holidays costs etc. Additionally, the
unions must bargain over issues such as job designs, career planning, and training. Thus, they
need to engage not only in issues of wages and conditions of services but also support
members in getting stimulating and challenging jobs in a safe and healthy environment. To
do this effectively, they would need to make consultation with members a more regular
feature to understand the changing needs and priorities of members.

Conclusion
The study has shown that Zambia’s legal framework guarantees the right of civil servants to
the formation of trade unions as well as their recognition for collective bargaining. On the
other hand, it was also seen that the functionality of the collective bargaining machinery in
the public service is not without shortcomings. Notably, public service negotiations are being
increasingly governed by parameters and cabinet circulars laid down by the Ministry of
Finance and cabinet office, respectively, within which the parties must bargain. This has
tended to undermine the true spirit of collective bargaining (Republic of Zambia (2019).

The biggest challenge, however, has come from the unions themselves. With splinter groups
transforming into autonomous independent unions, there has not been a united voice on the
workers’ side. The source of this problem, it seems, is internal to the unions, but it has
created serious instability and confusion in labour relations in the public sector.

The future outlook in terms of unity of purpose during collective bargaining negotiations
holds some promise, however. The recent amendments to the Industrial and Labour Relations
Act creates a unifying logic that will ensure that unions can act together when it comes to
collective bargaining. This will likely strengthen the effectiveness of the collective bargaining
machinery in the public service in Zambia and stand it in continued stead as a best practice
example in the southern African sub-region.

6
 References
Cabinet Office (2003): Service Commission Policies and Procedures for Employment in the
Public Service, Cabinet office: Lusaka.

Cabinet Office (2003): Terms and Conditions of Service for the Public Service. Cabinet
Office: Lusaka.

Central Statistics Office (2008): Census of Population and Housing, CSO, Lusaka.

Central Statistics Office (2016): Living Conditions Monitoring Survey 2006, CSO, Lusaka.

Central Statistics Office (2017): Labour Force Survey Report 2005, Lusaka: CSO.

Cole, G.A. (2017). Management: Theory and Practice. London: Letts Educational.

Davis, E. (1994) ‘Trade Unionism in the Future’. In Niland, J.R., Lansbury, R.D. and C.

GRZ (2006): Economic Report 2005, Ministry of Finance and National Planning, Lusaka

International Labour Organization (1998). Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights

at Work. 86th Session: Geneva.

Martin, R. (1989). Trade Unionism: Purposes and Forms. Oxford: Clarendon

Moonilal, R (1998): The Changing Landscape of Labour Relations, New Domains for Trade
Unions: A Case Study of Trinidad and Tobago. PhD Thesis, ISS, The Hague

Muneku, A.(2017): Labour Market Situation and Living Conditions in Zambia. Kitwe:
Unpublished.

Olowu, D. and L. Adamolekun. (1999). “Human Resource Management”. In Adamolekun, L.

(ed.) Public Administration in Africa. Boulder CO: Westview

Republic of Zambia (1993). Employment Act. Lusaka: Government Printers

Republic of Zambia (1993): Industrial and Labour Relations Act. Lusaka: Government
Printers

Republic of Zambia (1993). Public Sector Reform Programme. Lusaka: Cabinet Office

Republic of Zambia (1995). Public Service Pensions Act. Lusaka: Government Printers

Republic of Zambia (2019).Public Sector Capacity Building Project: Lusaka: Cabinet Office.

7
Republic of Zambia (2003). Medium Term Pay Reform Strategy: Lusaka: Cabinet Office.

Republic of Zambia (2005): National HIV/AIDS/STI/TB Policy. Ministry of Health: Lusaka.

Republic of Zambia (2006): National HIV/AIDS Strategic Framework 2006-2010. Ministry

of Health: Lusaka.

Schacter, M. (2011). Public Sector Reforms in Developing Countries: Issues, Lessons and
Future Directions. Ottawa: Institute of Governance<www.iog.ca> [23/07/04]

Storey, J. (ed) (2005). Human Resource Management: A Critical Text. London: International
Thomson Business Press.

Verevis(1994). The Future of Industrial Relations: Global Change and Challenges. London:
Sage.