Interim Report - REPORT_NO336, March 2005

1. 891. The complaint is contained in a communication dated 9 July 2004 from the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU). The ICFTU sent new allegations in a communication dated 7 February 2005.
2. 892. The Government provided its observations in communications dated 6 September 2004 and 21 February 2005.
3. 893. Zimbabwe has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98), and the Workers’ Representatives Convention, 1971 (No. 135).

A. The complainant’s allegations

1. 894. In its communication of 9 July 2004, the ICFTU alleges that the Government of Zimbabwe has a long history of violating trade union and other human rights, and is widely known for suppressing any kind of trade union activity that might interfere with its policy. The ICFTU alleges that the Government is directly responsible for numerous violations of trade union and other human rights against members, activists and leaders of the country’s trade union movement, and members of their families. These violations include harassment measures such as arbitrary dismissals, demotions and transfers, as well as arbitrary detentions and arrests, intimidation, threats, assault, beatings, torture, rapes and other violations.
2. 895. The complainant organization provided some information relating to the national protest of October 2003, and to the case of Mr. Lovemore Matombo, which will be dealt with in Cases Nos. 2313 and 2328, respectively.
3. 896. On 17 February 2004, members of the ZCTU western region committee, Mr. Reason Ngewnya (regional chairman), Mr. Davis Shambare (regional vice-chairman), Mr. Percy McIjo (regional officer) and Mr. Ambrose Manenji (member of the Commercial Workers’ Union of Zimbabwe) were picked up by the police in Bulawayo around 7 a.m. It is not clear why they were detained, since the police did not inform them of the reasons for their arrest nor did they have any pending issue with the police. However, since all these persons are widely known to be actively involved in the trade union movement, the ICFTU considers that they were in fact arrested as a measure of harassment or retaliation for their legitimate trade union activities.
4. 897. On 4 March 2004, Mr. Matthew Takaona, president of the Zimbabwe Union of Journalists (ZUJ) was dismissed from his journalist position at Zimpapers, after he had addressed the staff of Associate Newspapers of Zimbabwe, who were facing an impending retrenchment. His dismissal thus appears to have been in direct reprisal for his legitimate trade union activity.
5. 898. On 25 March 2004, Mr. Raymond Majongwe, general secretary of the Progressive Teachers’ Union of Zimbabwe (PTUZ) was requested to pick up documents in Belgravia; he became suspicious and sent his driver instead. On his way the driver was trailed by a light blue Nissan, which tried to collide with Mr. Majongwe’s car, until the assailant realized that he was not in it. The PTUZ believes that this constituted a failed attempt on the life of its leader.
6. 899. On 27 March 2004, a group of unknown political activists violently attacked Mr. Charles Gombo, general secretary of the Zimbabwe Construction and Allied Workers’ Union, who is also a town councillor. About 50 people besieged his residence at night when Mr. Gombo was not at home, vandalizing and stealing property. They attempted to lock the family members in the house and forced at gunpoint Mr. Gombo’s wife and three children to march to a nearby hospital, where they were later released.
7. 900. In April 2004, Mr. David Mangezi, vice-chairman of the ZCTU Chegutu district and a member of the Food Federation, was transferred from his workplace at a company called Bonnezim Private Ltd. in Chegutu to Harare. The reason given by the company management for the transfer was that:
8. ... following persistent allegations by our communal basic publics … your presence and employment at Bonnezim in Chegutu because of your alleged clandestine involvement in political activities at the workplace … . This situation becomes very unsafe for both yourself and the company. It also puts the company in a situation contrary to its espoused public relations policy, especially given that all its crucial resources, like land and labour, are derived from them. … We have decided to transfer you to our sister group company in Harare, without loss of service or benefits.
9. The ICFTU argues that, despite the company’s efforts to transfer Mr. Mangezi without loss of benefits, this shows that Bonnezim management bows to outside pressure, thereby compromising its employees’ right to freedom of association.
10. B. The Government’s reply
11. 901. Concerning the dismissal of Mr. Matthew Takaona, the Government states in its communication of 6 September 2004 that this worker should follow the channels of appeal that exist in national legislation.
12. 902. The Government submits that the case of Mr. Raymond Majongwe is merely an allegation. It is illogical to suggest that the Government was involved in causing this road incident without ascertaining first who were the people who requested Mr. Majongwe to pick up the documents. Road accidents do happen to anyone if proper driving conduct is not followed. The Government is surprised that a reputable organization would make such allegations based on hallucinations of individuals obsessed with a zeal to demonize the Government of Zimbabwe.
13. 903. The Government states that the case of Mr. Charles Gombo is purely a case of political contestation, as this happened during a time of elections in his constituency. It is wrong to refer to his trade union position in this context. The Government asserts that he is actually a political activist. Mr. Gombo can institute civil legal proceedings against the perpetrators.
14. 904. As regards the case of Messrs. Ngewnya, Shambare, McIjo and Manenji, the Government states that they are known political activists of an oppositional party. On the day in question, they were involved in political conduct that is contrary to the Public Order and Security Act (POSA). It is the responsibility of the police to safeguard order and security. The country cannot degenerate into anarchy because certain individuals seek to promote political agendas under the guise of trade unionism.
15. 905. As regards the case of Mr. David Mangezi, the Government fails to understand how it can be directly involved in such a matter between a worker and his employer. It is normal for companies to transfer employees within or between their branches of sister companies, in the interest of the company or of the workers concerned. The Government’s interest in such matters is to ensure that workers are not prejudiced. The right to freedom of association does not give workers a blank cheque to pursue social behaviour or conduct that is detrimental to the success or competitiveness of the company they work for. For the Government, Mr. Mangezi’s activities at his workplace are additional evidence that the ZCTU has elements pursuing a political agenda of the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), an oppositional party whose purpose is to remove the legitimate Government of Zimbabwe by violence.
16. 906. For the Government, it is no surprise that such individuals seek to perpetuate the spiral of confrontation, polarization and politicization of the workplace, which is totally unacceptable by any standards. This group of individuals in the ZCTU are organized, instructed and financed by the former colonial master to carry out mercenary activities for the purpose of subverting the constitutional order, while hiding under the cloak of “defence of workers’ rights”. The Government states in conclusion that it is unfortunate that the ICFTU should seek to reduce the ILO to a workplace dispute resolution machinery, despite the fact that there are established systems to deal with such matters in Zimbabwe. The real objectives of these manoeuvres are to overthrow the Zimbabwe Government and its constitutional system which is backed by the overwhelming majority of Zimbabweans, and to stigmatize and demonize Zimbabwe, so as to create an international climate for furthering their treasonous agenda. This comes in the wake of a recent admission by the former colonial master that they are working in cohorts with the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) and other organizations (presumably the ICFTU) to cause a regime change in Zimbabwe.

C. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 907. The Committee notes that this complaint concerns allegations of violations of trade union and other human rights, which have affected members of the Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions (ZCTU) and of some of its affiliate organizations. The complainant organization alleges in particular arbitrary arrests and detentions, dismissals and transfers, as well as assaults, anti-union intimidation and harassment. The Government replies that all the persons in question are well-known activists of an oppositional party who are pursuing a political agenda and want to overthrow the constitutional order, and that there exist legal remedies at national level to address the workplace issues raised by the complainant organization.
2. 908. As regards the Government’s argument that there exist legal remedies at national level to address the workplace issues raised by the complainant organization, the Committee recalls that, although the use of internal legal procedures, whatever the outcome, is undoubtedly a factor to be taken into consideration, it has always considered that, in view of its responsibilities, its competence to examine allegations is not subject to the exhaustion of national procedures [see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, 4th edition, 1996, Annex I, para. 33].
3. 909. Regarding the case of Mr. Matthew Takaona, the complainant organization alleges that his dismissal is motivated by anti-union reasons; the Government replies that he should follow national channels of appeal. Noting that Mr. Takaona was dismissed shortly after he had engaged in activities directly germane to his trade union functions and responsibilities, the Committee requests that, if the competent body decides that the dismissal was for anti-union reasons, Mr. Takaona be rapidly reinstated in his functions, or in an equivalent position, without loss of pay or benefits. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of developments in this respect and to provide it with a copy of any decision handed down.
4. 910. As regards the case of Messrs. Ngewnya, Shambare, McIjo and Manenji, the complainant organization alleges that these workers, actively involved in the trade union movement, were arrested as a measure of harassment or retaliation for their legitimate trade union activities, and that they were not informed of the reasons for their arrest. The Government replies that these persons are known political activists of an oppositional party and that, on the day in question, they were involved in political conduct that is contrary to the Public Order and Security Act (POSA). Noting that the Government does not provide information on the nature of said acts, which it says are contrary to the POSA, the Committee recalls once again, as it did recently in connection with Zimbabwe [Case No. 2313, 334th Report, para. 1116] that trade union activities cannot be restricted solely to occupational matters since government policies and choices are generally bound to have an impact on workers; workers’ organizations should therefore be able to voice their opinions on political issues in the broad sense of the term. While trade union organizations should not engage in political activities in an abusive manner and go beyond their true functions by promoting essentially political interests, a general prohibition on trade unions from engaging in any political activities would not only be incompatible with the principles of freedom of association, but also unrealistic in practice. Trade union organizations may wish, for example, to express publicly their opinion regarding the Government’s economic and social policy [see Digest, op. cit., paras. 454-455]. The Committee expresses its particular concern since this kind of government interference seems to be recurrent in the country [see Case No. 2238, 332nd Report, paras. 957-970 and Case No. 2313, 334th Report, paras. 1090-1121], and may create an atmosphere of intimidation and fear prejudicial to the normal development of trade union activities [see Digest, op. cit., para. 76]. It urges once again the Government to abstain in future from resorting to such measures of arrest and detention of trade union leaders or members for reasons connected to their trade union activities.
5. 911. As regards the case of Mr. David Mangezi, the Committee notes that, while the employer’s decision was motivated by reasons having a political overtone, this worker was not dismissed or disciplined but transferred without loss of pay or benefits to a parent company in the same group. Taking into account the fact that Mr. Mangezi is an elected trade union representative who may thus be prevented from exercising his legitimate trade union activities, the Committee urges the employer, the union concerned and Mr. Mangezi to reconsider that transfer decision, with a view to permitting Mr. Mangezi’s return to his initial workplace in due course, if he so desires. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of developments in this respect.
6. 912. Regarding the cases of Messrs. Raymond Majongwe and Charles Gombo, the Committee considers, on the basis of the scant information and evidence available, that no discernible link can reasonably be inferred between the incidents mentioned by the complainant organization and the trade union status of these persons. The Committee therefore considers that this aspect of the case does not call for further examination.
7. 913. From a more general perspective, the Committee observes that some of the incidents alleged in the present case follow similar events:(a) in March 2002, as a result of which the Committee requested the Government to exercise great restraint in relation to interventions in the internal affairs of trade unions [Case No. 2184, 329th Report, para. 831]; (b) in December 2002, where it reiterated its call to the Government to refrain from interfering in ZCTU trade union activities and from arresting and detaining trade union leaders and members for reasons connected to their trade union activities [Case No. 2238, 332nd Report, para. 970]; and (c) in October-November 2003, where it once again urged the Government not to resort to measures of arrest and detention of trade union leaders and members for reasons connected to their legitimate trade union activities [Case No. 2313, 334th Report, para. 1121]. Noting further the discussion that took place in June 2004 before the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards, and that two other similar cases are pending before it, the Committee expresses its deep concern with the extreme seriousness of the general trade union climate in Zimbabwe, and once again calls the Governing Body’s special attention on the situation.