| dc.description.abstract | Industrial arbitration is the last stage in n process
of dispute reconciliation commencing with negotiation between
an employer and a trade union:Most trade disputes are
settled prior to the arbitration process, but arbitration is
important not only for the disputes settled by it, but also
for the effect of arbitration onwards on future negotiations
and conciliation.
The tendency in independent Africa has been to tighten
up on procedures for settling disputes. strikes are either
banned completely or restricted,by legislation, or social
and political pressures. There is increasing emphasis,
therefore, on alternative ways of settling disputes. much
of the machinery used in Africa had a common starting point
in British Colonial legislation, but as time has passed since
independence the variations have grown. Within the East
African Community, for example, there are many differences
between Kenya and Uganda, and even more between both of
these countries and Tanzania. In a period of change it is
important to be knowledgeable about comparative experience
in order to benefit by that experience and avoid the mistakes
of others. The present study of industrial arbitration in
Uganda is a contribution to this knowledge resulting from
an examination of the pre -and post-colonial experience
Spanning different types of dispute resolving procedures,
including a standing arbitration court , At this time when
the legislation is again under review, it is hoped that this
research will be a useful contribution to the thinking of
the Uganda Government, as well as of scholars engaged in
comparative studies.
The research commences with an examination of the situation
existing prior to the first trade disputes legislation
in 1949. Much was done informally in previous years by the
Labour Department in resolving disputes and the legislation,
therefore, merely served to regularise the position to some
extent, although the conciliation and arbitration provisions
contained in the legislation were not formally used for some
years. It would appear likely, in fact, that the main motive
behind the Ordinance Was the need for legislative power to
deal with strikes in at least the more important areas of the
economy. The Ordinance only reached the statute book after
three attempts: the previous Bills being much more restrictive
than the final legislation. The 1949 Ordinance was
reasonably liberal in tone, making conciliation and arbitration
entirely voluntary except in a very limited area, initially
confined to Health and Public Utility services. This was
'revised in 1950 to cover 'essential Services', but in fact
the list of services scheduled was somewhat restricted
during the currency of the Ordinance. Only the Armed Forces,
Police and Prison Services were originally excluded from the
provisions of the Ordinance,. but this was amended after independence
by a 1963 Act, covering all 'Public Officers',
and giving very restricted rights of association and wage
negotiation. In 1968 the term Public Officer was extended
to include employees of Municipal Authorities and District
Administrations.
The rudimentary state of industrial relations, which
for some years inhibited the use of formal collective bargaining
machinery, started to improve in the late 1950's.
Trade unions began to increase in numbers and strength
following the 1952 Trade Union Act,and more particularly
following a change in the economic condition of the country
from 1955 onwards*. Trade Union leaders came to value stability
and increasingly began to look to the Ordinance for
assistance, Inevitably there were mistakes and arbitrary
decisions whilst the labour Deprtment (later upgraded to
part Ministry status) and arbitrators gained experience.
However, as time went on all parties begun to see the Ordinance
provisions as a useful aid in peacefully resolving their
disputes. The exper1encegained under the Ord1nance, and
the custom and precedent developed, has been examined in
some detail in the research.
The succeeding legislation, the 1964 Act, was again
prompted by the felt need to deal with an upsurge of (mostly
unofficial) strikes, particularly those with a suspected
political motive. Under the Act, which aroused considerable
Parliamentary controversy, strikes - wherever occurring - are
discouraged in that their lenders, except in circumstances which
are somewhat unclear but certainly restrictive, can be prosecuted.
The strikers themselves except, mainly, those within
the (1ncre~s1ngly extensive) Essential Services, are however,
not subject to penalties. In dealing with genuine trade
disputes outside of the Essential Services the Act has kept
to the principle of voluntary arbitration except where the
Minister cares to set up a Board of Inquiry. This happened
only once during the period under review. A major new
feature of the Act was the establishment of a standing Industrial
Court to replace the ad~hoc Arbitration Tribunals used
under the Ordinance.,
The field research extensively inquired into the working
of the 1964 Act and the Industrial Court in particular, by
questioning Ministry officials, Court members, employers and
trade unions. It is in a fair summary to say that in general.
the Act has proved an invaluable part of the country is
industrial relations machinery.. The manday s lost through
strikes has decreased considerably (except in 1969) and
the Industrial Court has made a positive contribution to
achieving industrial peace. It has, however, been less
successful in keeping its awards in conformity with the
Governments economic policy. In part, at least, the
success of the Court and the Act can be attributed to
the tolerant way that the powers vested in the Minister
have been used There were two prosecutions of strike
leaders in the period under review, but otherwise a
very abstemious use of the penal and other restrictive
powers. In particular there has been no legal clampdown
on unofficial strikes within the Essential Services.
The Court has not entirely escaped charges of bias,
particularly from trade unions, but the study nevertheless
showed a large degree of satisfaction with the system as
it operates.
The research makes a considerable number of recommendations
for reform. It would be helpful if the two
main areas of ambiguity could be clarified. First the
position relating to the leaders of strikes outside the
Essential Services and, second, the position relating
to the enforcement of awards. Other recommendations
include speeding up the Court processes and allowing,
instead of both parties acting jointly as at present.
The Court should be given more powers of redress in
dismissal cases, and the panel of independent members
should be restructured. The position of Public Officers
should be re-examined Areas in which further research
is needed include the conciliation processes and the
incidence of unofficial and unconstitutional strikes.
A full summary of all recommendations is given on page 549
of the thesis. | en |
