TRADE UNIONS AND THE STRUGGLE FOR ASSOCIATIONAL SPACE IN

UGANDA:THE 1993 TRADE UNION LAW

A DRAFT PAPER
(NOT TO BE QUOTED)
JOHN-JEAN BARYA
Senior Research Fellow, Centre for Basic Research &
Head, Department of Public and Comparative Law, Makerere
University, KAMPALA.

February, 2000

1. 0 INTRODUCTION
In 1993 Uganda's interim parliament the NRC (National Resistance Council) passed the
Trade Union Laws (Miscellaneous Amendments) Statute 1993.1 This Statute represented two
major developments. On the one hand it allowed several hitherto non-unionisable categories
of workers both in the private and public sectors to be unionisable. On the other hand it
created room for representation of workers in that interim parliament, the NRC.
The purpose of this paper is to establish the forces behind the enactment of that statute and in
particular the role that workers and their trade unions played vis-a-vis other forces, especially
the state and employers. Closely related to this objective is the fact that at the time this statute
was passed there was also a constitution-making programme in place since 198822 to which
workers and trade unions, among others, contributed. The provisions in the 1995 Constitution
(the draft of which was debated in the Constituent Assembly between 1994-1995) relating to
workers organisational rights also further expanded the associational space available to
workers. Once again, to what extent were workers and unions responsible for the enactment
of those provisions in the Constitution?
More specifically this paper seeks to answer the following questions:
1. To what extent were workers and trade unions responsible for the generally positive
provisions in the 1993 trade Union Law and the 1995 Constitution? Why were they
relatively successful?
2. What forces were opposed to the expansion of workers' organisational/associational space
under the 1993 law and the 1995 Constitution; why and to what extent did they succeed
or fail?
3. To what extent have workers and trade unions utilized the expanded associational space?
Where have they succeeded and where have they failed and why?
4. What role has government human rights policy on the one hand (on workers rights and
human rights in general) and ' on' the other hand its economic environment (especially on
SAPs, economic policy and liberalisation, privatisation and encouraging foreign
investors) played in advancing or impeding the realisation of space and rights created by
1

Statute 10 of 1993.
This is when the Uganda Constitutional Commission was set up under Statute 5/1988, to gather views and
make proposals for a new constitution.
2

the 1993 law and 1995 Constitution?

In order to answer the above questions, it is proposed to divide this paper into 5 sections. The
first section is this introduction. The second section looks at the 1993 trade union law, the
forces behind it and those opposed to it and explains the relative success achieved by
workers. Section 3 looks at the provisions of Article 40(3) of the 1995 Constitution, the
forces that were ranged against it and for it and again why workers turned out relatively
successful. The provisions are analysed in light of the fact that at the time of Constituent
Assembly debates workers were represented both in the NRC and the Constituent Assembly.
Section 4 looks at the practical implication of the 1993 law and Article 40(3) of the
Constitution. To what extent has the new organisational space been utilised? What are the
opportunities and the obstacles? Under this section we also look at three specific issues
arising out of the two laws, as examples among the many other issues, namely:
a)

Of what importance has workers' representation in parliament and the CA

been?
b)

How has the expanded associational space helped workers to deal with the

whole problem of privatisation?

c)

How have workers/unions handled the problem of recognition in light of the

provisions of the new laws?

Section 5 is the conclusion. In this paper we conclude that whereas the amendment to the
1993 law and the constitution-making process were state initiatives, the workers and trade
unions through organisation, persistence and consistency were able to extract several
advantages from the making of the laws. However their success was limited because their
representation is limited and not organically linked to the trade unions and NOTU in
particular. For this reason they have not been able for instance to challenge the process of
privatisation except but have only managed to extract some ameliorative measures. The
workers and trade union's weaknesses have also meant that though the right to form and join
a trade union are guaranteed by both the Constitution and 1993 law they have in many
instances failed to realise and enforce it in the face of recalcitrant employers and a State
ambivalent about enforcing the law.
2.0 THE TRADE UNION LAWS (MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS) STATUTE

a)

WORKERS REPRESENTATION IN NRC

The genesis of this law is quite interesting. From 1974 when NOTU was formed it has always
demanded that civil servants (including medical workers, especially paramedics), teachers
and Bank of Uganda employees3 be allowed to unionise. The form of demands especially
from the fall of Idi Amin in 1978 had been petitions, memoranda and speeches on Labour
Days, during seminars and meetings with Ministry of Labour and other government officials4
In addition the crisis created by SAPS (Structural Adjustment Programmes) and the
beginning of privatisation and retrenchment had squeezed workers and union and pushed
them to the wall. This, according to some trade unions leaders, propelled them to demand to
be involved in the decision-making process on economic policies. Following the 1983
retrenchments during the UPC-Obote II first SAP programme for instance the issue of
representation for workers was first raised and the UPC-Obote II government began
nominating workers' representatives on Boards of Directors of public enterprises like UTC
(Uganda Transport Corporation) and NHCC (National Housing and Construction
Corporation). When the NRM came to power they expanded this, as a result of workers
demands, to other public enterprises like URC (Uganda Railways Corporation), UPTC, NSSF
(National Social Security Fund) and Uganda Fish-et Manufacturers Ltd.5
Workers also, through their trade union leaders began to agitate to be requested in Parliament
and made this demand through memoranda, seminar resolutions and representations to the
tripartite Labour Laws Review Committee that began sitting in 1989.6
However it seems that the specific demand to be represented in Parliament came about
because of NRM's own policy of wishing to incorporate all significant (especially organised)
political forces into its power structure. When NRM captured state power in 1986 under
Legal Notice No. l of 1986 the NRC (Parliament) consisted of unelected numbers only,
namely: the NRM Chairman (who was also Chairman of NRC), 38 other original NRM
members who had participated in the war that brought NRM to power (the so-called
"historical" members) and ministers appointed under the initial broad-based government
(Legal Notice No. l 1989, RU 1993:291). The idea of constructing a Corporatist government
3

Bank of Uganda employee were first prohibited from unionising by the Trade Unions Act (Amendment)
Decree 29/1973, s.l(ff(1))
4
Interview with E. Baingana, former Director of Research, NOTU 19861991, currently Education and
Organising Secretary, UCEU (Uganda Communications Employees Union formerly Uganda Posts and
Telecommunications Employees Union UPTEU), 21 December 1999.
5
Interview with D.N. Nkojjo, Chairman-General, NOTU and General Secretary UCEU, 15 January 2000.
6
Ibid., See also Labour Laws Review Committee, meetings... (Minutes)

was conceived in the period 1986-1989. Accordingly Legal Notice No. l of 1986
(Amendment) Statute 19897 was passed 8and expanded the composition of NRC to include,
apart from the existing members; constituency representatives (at county or similar levels),
10 NRA (National Resistance Army) soldiers, a woman representatives per district, five youth
representatives "elected by an organised youth organisation representing all youth in
Uganda", twenty members appointed by the President on the NRC's recommendation and
"three workers' representatives elected by an organisation representing all workers in
Uganda".9
Indeed the dispute that broke out between the NRM Secretariat and the NOTU Secretariat
over the question: who would represent workers in Uganda in the NRC arose in the context of
the proposed expansion of the NRC arose in the context of the proposed expansion of the
NRC under Statute 1 of 1989 passed early (February) that year. This is how when Dr. Kiiza
Besigye, the then NRM National Political Commissar (NPC), was discussing the elections to
the NRC following the passing of Statute No. l of 1989, he argued for the formation of a
"new, democratic and more representative organisation of workers" rather than NOTU which
had been set up in 1978 under the Trade Unions Act (Amendment) Decree 197310 and which
was the only trade union centre allowed to exist by law and to which all Ugandan registered
trade unions were compulsorily affiliated.11
In its wisdom the NRM government had allocated five seats for the youth and three for the
workers.12 Dr. Besigye argued that "NOTU does not include all the workers of Uganda" and
that consultations were going on "to form a broader and more democratic worker's
organisation which will embrace all the workers in the country" and accordingly "the three
candidates to represent the workers in the NRC (would) come from that new body".13
Similarly consultations were also going on "for the formation of... broader national youth and
Women's organisations before their seats in the NRC (could) be filled".14 Dr. Besigye was
even of the view that sitting NRC members and Ministers could also "contest in the workers'
forum", because there were already "former trade union leaders in the NRC like Deputy

Statute 1/1989
It commenced on 9th February 1988
9
S.1(a-1), Statutel/1989.
10
Decree 29 of 1973.
11
See s.l(1) Trade Unions Decree 20 of 1976.
12
Statute 1 of 1989; and New Vision 10 February 1989 "NOTU in Election Row".
13
New Vision, Ibid.
14
Ibid.
8

Minister of Tourism and Wildlife, Robinson Kasozi".15

This position was vehemently opposed by NOTU and the affiliate unions. NOTU leaders
stated clearly that "their organisation would reject any candidate fielded to represent the
workers without NOTU's consent" and would "also fight and oppose whoever will attempt to
impose such candidates on the workers".16 The NOTU leaders further explained and made the
following observations:
(a) that NOTU was the sole legal body representing the country's labour movement having
been set up under Decree 20 of 1976;
(b) that NOTU had I S national affiliate unions representing various categories of workers
throughout the country;
(c) that NOTU's organisational structures were the oldest democratic social structures dating
from the colonial days;
(d) that NOTU was recognised officially and sent delegations to ILO meetings in Geneva and
spoke on behalf of workers on Labour Days;
(e) that they did not represent all the country's work force because some of the workers were
restricted from joining the trade union movement by law such as: civil servants, teachers,
doctors and nurses in government hospitals, academicians and all Bank of Uganda
employees.
f) that NOTU had its own democratic organisations which could organise elections for
workers' representatives to the NRC, namely a special delegates conference, the supreme
organ of the organisation.17
The NOTU leaders then made a more revealing statement challenging the NRM Secretariat
and the N.P.C.; they argued:
the misfortune is that our efforts are being misdirected towards political
squabbles over an imposed structural organisation of "a new worker's
organisation" and parliamentary seats instead of tackling broader and more
15

Ibid.
Ibid.
17
New Vision, Ibid, p.8.
16

fundamental national issues that affect workers like the IMF/Kiyonga

budgetary programmes, redundancies in government departments and
parastatals and genuine democracy for workers.18
NOTU further contended that the NRM Secretariat was diverting their attention and energies
and engaging then "on new areas of struggle namely whether NOTU is a legitimate organ
representing all Ugandan workers or a new body be formed as an organ of the state" and on
the question "who should represent Labour interests in the NRC: trade unionists or politicians
outside labour?19 NOTU opposed the formation of another workers' organisation contrary to
s.l(1) of the Trade Unions Decree 1976. They further expressed dismay that "workers could
be given a representation by three people only when youth were given five" and demanded
that:
government repeals the present oppressive labour laws which prohibited civil
servants, nurses, teachers, academicians and Bank of Uganda star from joining
NOTU... Government had better respect these laws instead of charging that
NOTU is not embracing all workers when it is government restricting these
workers from joining the organisation.20
They opposed the creation of a rival organisation which was meant to be "on organ of the
state or a puppet trade union under a political organ" and charged that the "NRM Secretariat
had set up a worker's desk without consultations with the workers' Union".21
The strong opposition by NOTU to the NRM Secretariat's proposal to form a rival workers'
organisation jolted NRM leaders who beat a strategic retreat. The NPC, Dr. Besigye called a
meeting with NOTU leaders in which he "agreed to consult the government over the issue."
He would then "communicate the final decision to NOTU".22 In the mean time the
government set up a Ministerial Committee to study the matter. At the same time the N1uvI
Secretariat organised a meeting (DATE, 1989 or 1990) of all employees associations (both
professional and career associations) whose representatives came from all over the country
including: Uganda Civil Servants Association, Uganda Teachers Association, the Nurses
Association (?) and others. NOTU and its affiliate unions were also invited but the members
18

New Vision, 21 February 1989, "NOTU Challenges Besigye".

Ibid.
20
Ibid.
21
Ibid.
22
New Vision 3 March 1989, "Besigye Talks to NOT(7".
19

representing the associations greatly outnumbered the trade Unionists. The meeting had about
1000 people and was aimed at defeating NOTU and the trade unions and creating a parallel
organisation/structure nation wide "to represent workers.23 But because NOTU had been
mobilising the associations with a view of transforming them into trade Unions and affiliating
to NOTU especially UTA, MUASA (Makerere University Academic Staff Association),
Uganda Teacher's Union (UTU, unregistered), Uganda Nurses and midwives Association, and
UCSA,24 the staff associations rejected the idea of sidelining, defeating and replacing NOTU
or ignoring it with respect to workers' representation in the NRC. According to one trade
unionist E. Kategaya (the NPC?) "was shocked and dropped the idea of not working with
NOTU.25 In this meeting it was resolved (?) to allow civil servants and medical staff in
government service to join trade unions although some of the associations like UTA and
nurses were divided on the matter.26 Several meetings and discussions ensued between NOTU
and government.
The Ministerial Committee composed of officials from the Ministries of Labour, Public
Service and Cabinet Affairs, Education, Finance, Teaching and Public Service Commissions,
Makerere University, Institute of Teacher Education (ITEK), Kyambogo, Uganda Civil
Servants' Association and the Chairman of the Industrial Court, came up with
recommendations in August 1990 that eventually appeared in The Trade Union Laws
(Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill indicating who and who should not join trade unions in the
civil service, teaching service, judiciary and institutions of higher learning.27
The trade unions disagreed with the categorisation of government as to who should or should
not join a trade union because to them many categories of public service employees were
unnecessarily being excluded from unionising. For instance contrary to what government had
proposed they wanted in institutions of higher learning "even principals, directors and heads
of departments (to) be allowed to unionise since all of them have no power to hire or fire
members of the teaching staff' and in the case of traditional civil servants they wanted that
"except for Permanent Secretaries and heads of divisions, the rest ...be allowed to join trade
unions" and that for teachers all should join trade unions.28 Whereas trade unions and workers
had for a long time struggled to have all workers hitherto excluded from unionising to be
23

Interviews with E. Baingana and D.N. Nkojjo, supra.

Interview with E. Baingana, supra.
25
Ibid.
26
Interview with D.N. Nkojjo, supra.
27
New Vision, 17 August 1990 "Civil Servants to join NOTU".
28
New Vision 21 August 1990, "Workers want all officers in NOTU".
24

allowed to join unions especially in the public service, the most significant force behind this
particular law seems to have been, clearly, the state. The main arguments therefore centered
on levels of unionisation but not the principle of unionisation or representation in parliament.
However, although the NRM government had provided for, among others, the representation
of workers in the NRC in 1989, as seen above, it did not succeed in having its way. The NRM
Secretariat failed to create a parallel and rival workers' organisation to NOTU. NOTU was
able to maintain its organic autonomy from the government and to thwart the government's
attempt to by-pass it or replace it as the legitimate representative of organised workers in
Uganda.
According to one veteran trade unionist involved in this struggle whereas government wanted
to incorporate them, the unions wanted "cooperation, not incorporation"; hence the struggle
to maintain their autonomy and representative role.2929 Presenting the report of the Select
Committee that considered the 1993 law in detail, its Chairman A.A. Ongom observed:
"Honourable members will recall that the Minister of Labour and Social
Welfare explained the purpose of the Bill. That was mainly to cater for the
election of representatives of the trade unions to this House and to the
Constituent Assembly. That is why it was necessary to bring this at this
stage .... However, I should also like to take this opportunity to reiterate that
this Bill was a result of the constitutional provision to the Legal Notice No. I
of 1986 and the Amendment Statute of 1989 which sought to expand the
Council and, inter alia, have three workers representatives.30
The Chairman of the Select Committee further argued that it was necessary to expand the
base of NOTU the only "umbrella of organised workers in Uganda." This included allowing
civil servants to unionise and other workers outside the framework of NOTU especially
teachers. In addition pressure from ILO was cited as reason for expanding the organisational
space of trade unions. The Chairman stated:
...Uganda was under constant pressure from the International Labour
Organisation (ILO) of which it is a member for excluding the employees of the
Bank of Uganda from joining trade unions. Uganda cannot afford to be an
29
30

Interview with E. Baingana, supra.

NRC Debates, 5 May 1993.

island in this region because Kenya Tanzania and Zambia have extended the
democratic rights to the affected groups. This Bill therefore seeks to
democratise and liberalise workers' participation in decision-making in matters
affecting them.31
It is also fairly clear that the Select Committee in its own words relied on and was persuaded
by advice from the Attorney-General, as well as "representatives of the civil servants ...
teachers and trade union leaders".32 But as we showed above government and eventually this
Committee of the NRC came to this position due to the consistent organisation and pressure
from NOTU and the Unions. The contribution of Hon.A. Tiberondwa who was and is a
trustee of the Uganda Teachers Association (UTA) was also significant regarding the attitude
of teachers to trade unionism, as we show below. The Chairman of the Committee also
revealed that the representatives of civil servants, teachers and other union leaders:
informed the Committee that the idea of unionising the civil servants and
teachers was initiated by Government (and) for these reasons they had no
choice".33
Here the colonial legacy of separating elite and professional workers from the mainstream
rank and file workers was being resurrected and was firmly at work because the teachers'
representatives argued that they could positively use the law "to be unionised professionally"
but would not wish "to be forced to affiliate to the union of teacher workers". In the same
vein, civil servants' representatives contended that they "would not like to affiliate to the
Public Employees Union".34 Indeed both groups:
wanted to be free not to join NOTU, rather they wished to form their own
apex(!)unions.35
The question of compulsory affiliation to NOTU indeed proved very contentions. As already
shown above the Trade Unions Decree 1976 makes it compulsory for every trade union to be
affiliated to NOTU. And all unions must be registered with the Registrar of Trade Unions.36
The Minister of Labour insisted that "no union will be recognised by government unless it is
31

NRC Debate 5 May 1993.

Ibid.
33
Ibid.
34
Ibid.
35
Ibid.
36
S.8. Trade Unions Decree, No.20/1976.
32

10

affiliated to NOTU. If this has got to be changed, the very first Bill which is coming to this
House, is the Trade Union Decree 20 of 1976. It is the one which has got that provision; that
would be the time for the House to address the issue if it so wishes, but not at this time
here".37
The representative of the professionalists Hon. A. Tiberondwa, opposed the existing law
arguing that,
this ...is a very serious matter; if we are not ready to form these unions, then we
should wait because many parts of the world that I know of professional unions are
not obliged to be affiliated to a central organisation of trade unions.38
He therefore proposed that affiliation to NOTU should be optional rather than compulsory
and the Trade Union Decree be amended accordingly. His proposition was, however,
defeated.
It would appear that the idea of professionalism being separate and distinct from unionism
was strongly felt by both the UTA (Uganda Teacher's Association) and the Uganda Civil
Servants Association (UCSA), but especially the former. They held the lower cadre worker in
the Civil service and in schools (especially primary schools) in low regard. Explaining their
position the Minister of Labour and Social Welfare A. Ejalu observed:
the question of the Teachers' Union and Civil Servants' Union not joining the existing
ones ...(is) that the teachers say "do not join us with the lower ones, we want our own
(Union - JB) alone". Even the civil servants, there is a Public Employees Union they
are now saying they should not join simply because the members who are there now
are of lower ranks.
The question of UTA or UCSA becoming trade Unions had arisen only obliquely. It was not a
direct demand from these two organisations. The impetus was from the state because it
wished to incorporate legitimate or credible workers' representatives into the NRC. Indeed in
the period 1989-1990, as we detailed above, government had hoped to use the professional
and career associations to create a parallel organisation of (both unionised and non-unionised,
unorganised) workers. Hon. A.A. Okurut put the matter this way:

37
38

Ibid.
Ibid.

11

We are discussing the question of enabling workers to be represented here. It

is right and mutual for this government to organise our workers and give them
a voice. This is the basic idea behind this amendment. Also we have been
criticised in ILO Conferences that we are being undemocratic, why do we not
free our workers, why do we not allow them to fight for their rights? And this
is what this amendment is doing. We are being democratic ....but when we
were talking about this question of having workers' representatives here again
NOTU realised that NOTU as constituted is representative of very few
workers. There are a lot of workers outside the NOTU umbrella because there
are many civil servants that have not been unionised, that have no voice; there
are many teachers... they have no voice. So the whole idea why NOTU; came
up with this amendment and which was passed in the cabinet is to democratise
and also liberalise the question of unionisation and see that... many that
constitute the workforce are unionised.39
The state thus presented itself as the force behind the expansion of levels of unionisation by
allowing hitherto non-unionisable categories of workers to be unionised, though as we show
below this was itself very limited. Secondly, which was in fact the prime aim of the state, it
presented itself as a democratising and liberating force for the workers by providing for and
allowing them to be represented in the NRC. The NRM/NRA had conceived its strategy of
reconstructing the state in a corporatist manner. The NRC essentially was to look like the
Tanzanian Parliament before multiparty politics, that is the one-party state parliament. Legal
Notice No. l of 1986 initially established the NRC and vested in it "the supreme authority of
the Government" and in particular legislative powers. As at 1986 the NRC consisted of the
Chairman (President Museveni), 38 original NRM members (the so called "historicals") and
ministers appointed into government. In 1989 under Legal Notice No.l of 1986 (Amendment)
Statute40 membership of the NRC was expanded. In addition to the above categories were
now added: 151 elected county representatives; 5 elected representatives of Kampala City; 14
representatives for each municipality; 10 NRA (Army) representatives; 38 elected women's
representative, one from each district and 20 members nominated by the President officials
from the Secretariat of the NRM.41 In addition the 1989 statute provided for the election of 5
youth representatives and "three workers' representatives to be elected by organised workers'
39

Ibid.
No. 1/1989.
41
41 See RU:291.
40

12

organisation representing all workers in Uganda".42

In other words all significant social interests were to be represented and incorporated into the
NRM power structure, especially the NRC. This is how the CCM (Chama Cha Mapinduzi)
parliament of Tanzania before 199 .... looked like, the only difference being that the women,
youth, cooperatives, trade unions etc were also directly and organically part of the party. The
NRM preferred to call itself a Movement rather than a party, but significantly it did not allow
and has not allowed other political parties to operate. It sought to harmonise the interests of
all social groups at least in what was supposed to be an interim period 1986-1989, later
extended to 1996. Currently a referendum is slated mid-2000 to decide whether the
NRM/Movement continues as the only legitimate political organisation or whether the
country should go multiparty.
(b) EXPANDING THE RIGHT TO UNIONISE
At independence the right to form and join a trade unions was regulated by the Trade Union
Ordinance 1952.43 Under that Ordinance all workers in both the public and private sectors had
been free to form and join trade unions until the Public Service (Negotiating Machinery) Act
196344 allowed only junior public officers to join or belong to trade unions. In 1968 the
Public Service (Negotiating Machinery) (Amendment) Act45 removed the right of even junior
public officers from joining trade unions. Only the lowest Cadres, the group employees could
join trade unions. In 1973 Bank of Uganda employees were prohibited from joining trade
unions.46
Therefore as of 1993 all public service employees were excluded from joining trade unions
except group employees who had their (ineffectual) union, UPEU. In the private and
parastatal sector the levels of unionisation had always depended upon agreement between the
Union and the employer usually stipulated in the Recognition Agreement. The 1993 law
expanded the unionisation levels by removing the legal barriers in the following manner:
A) S.72 (2) of the Trade Union Decree 1976 had prohibited the army, police and
prison officers and personnel as well as employees of Bank of Uganda from joining
or

belonging to a trade union.

42

S.1 (k), Statute 1/1989.

Ordinance No. 10/1952.
44
No.78/1963.
45
Act 24/1968.
46
Decree 29/1973, supra.
43

13

The new law repealed that provision and instead provided that only members of the army,
police, prisons, local administration police as well as officers of ISO (Internal Security
Organisation) and ESO (External Security Organisation) could not join a trade union.47
B) Other categories of persons not eligible to be members of a trade union or an
employees' association affiliated to a trade Union were specified under the new
5.72(2)(c) into 5 categories:
(i) Officers in public service holding the following offices:
(a) Permanent Secretaries;
(b) Heads of Department, Division or Sections;
(c) School Headmasters and Deputy Headmasters;
(d) Principals or Directors of Institutions of Higher Learning;
(e) any other public officer who is on the salary scale U2 or an equivalent or
similar scale replacing that scale or who is above that scale;
(ii) officers of the Bank of Uganda holding the following offices:
(a) Governor;
(b) Deputy Governor;
(c) Secretary;
(d) General Manager;
(e) Heads of Department;
(f) Assistant or Deputy Heads of Department;
(g) Personnel Officers.
In other words apart from the above all the other employees of Bank of Uganda were
now free to join a trade Union.
(iii) Other officers and employees, whether or not in the public service holding the
following offices:

47

(a)

Personnel Officers;

(b)

Labour Officers;

(c)

Industrial Relations Officers;

S.3of Statute 10/1993.

14

(d)

Chiefs

(e)

Judges, Magistrates, Registrars of the Courts of Judicature

(iv)

Persons holding the office of Personal Secretary to any of the offices specified

above in (i), (ii) and (iii), that is in those public offices, Bank of Uganda and to
personnel, labour and Industrial Relations Officers as well as to Chiefs and judicial
officers.
(v) It was also provided that officers or employees may be excluded from membership
of trade union or employees association
"by mutual agreement between an employer and the trade union to which such
officers or employees would otherwise belong".48
The effect of the above provisions was to liberate the overwhelming majority of public
service employees (mainly the traditional civil service) and allow them to join trade unions to
promote and protect their employment related interests. In addition it limited the area of
non-unionisable employees in the private sector only to a small group of people, namely,
personnel and industrial relations officers. Otherwise the voluntary nature of trade unionism
and collective bargaining was upheld in the provision cited above that workers could only be
"excluded from membership of trade unions and employees associations by mutual
agreement between an employer and the trade union to which such officers or employees
would otherwise belong." This was also a confirmation and improvement on the decision in
Amalgamated Transport and General Workers' Union vs. The Oil Industry Joint Industrial
Council of 198649 in which the court had overruled the wholesale exclusion of employees
from union representation simply because their duties were confidential or supervisory or
because they were professional or University Graduates.50
The main lesson here is that the workers, both in the public service and the private sector
were able to expand their organisational and associational space through the initiative of
government which had a narrower interest in amending the trade union laws - that interest
was how to incorporate the workers within the power structure of the 1`fRM/NRA. To do this
they needed a credible and reasonably representative NOTU. An earlier attempt to bypass
NOTU had failed and government was forced to work with it. NOTU being an umbrella of
48

See S. 5 Statute 10/1993.

Trade Dispute Cause No. 3 of 1986.
50
Ibid: 101-102. For a full discussion, see the award itself and J.J. Barya 1991: 18-19.
49

15

registered trade unions could neither be credible nor reasonably representative unless its
affiliates were credible and representative. Hence the need to allow hitherto excluded public
service workers (mainly civil service and Bank of Uganda) to unionise and also to clearly
state who could not be unionised in the private sector. In both cases the end result was to
greatly expand workers' association space. We shall see in Section 4 whether these workers
have been able to use this space or to what extent and why.
(C) THE RIGHT TO WITHDRAW LABOUR (STRIKES) IN THE PUBLIC SERVICE
One of the most contentious issues in industrial relations has always been the right of an
employee to withdraw labour in concert with others, or simply put the right to strike. The
Public Service Negotiating (Machinery) Act established a Joint Staff Council (JSC)51 which
was supposed to negotiate terms and conditions of service for public officers eligible to join a
trade union. The Act also makes provision for a dispute handling procedure52 and for strikes.53
Theoretically group employees (after 1968) or junior public officers (before 1968 when the
law was amended) could take part in a strike as long as they followed the negotiation
procedure under the Act.54 Otherwise going on strike without exhausting the negotiation
machinery rendered every officer or group employee to be "deemed to be guilty of
misconduct justifying summary dismissal.55 In addition no officer or group employee to
whom the Act applied was allowed to "take part in a strike which causes or is likely to cause
a cessation of work in any of the essential services specified in the First Schedule to this
Act".56 Any officer or employee contravening these provisions was liable to a fine not
exceeding Shs. 1,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or both.57 This
also meant that whereas civil servants to whom the Act applied could not take part in a strike
without exhausting the negotiation machinery, those working in the stipulated essential
services in the public service could not strike at all or under any circumstances. But those
outside those essential services (like ordinary civil servants in Ministries) could actually go
51

Part II ss. 3-6, Cap. 278, Laws of Uganda.

Ibid Part III.
53
Ibid. Part IV.
54
See S. 17 of Cap. 278.
55
Ibid s. 17(3).
56
Under the First Schedule to the Act, Cap. 278, Laws of Uganda, as amended by the Public Service
(Negotiating Machinery) (Amendment) Act 1968, Act 26 of 1968, the essential services were: water, electricity,
health sanitary, fire and hospital services, public transport services necessary or ancillary to these services and
teaching services. Act 24 of 1968 added the supply and distribution of fuel petrol and oil services, public
transport and teaching services.
57
The fine of Shs. 1000 in 1963 when the Act was passed may be equivalent to about Shs. 250,000/= in 1999.
52

16

on strike so long as they followed the dispute handling procedures in the Act.
When the Trade Unions (Miscellaneous Amendments) Statute was being debated the fear that
unionising civil servants would encourage them to strike was raised. It was raised more
particularly in relation to levels of unionisation. On the other hand the professionalists, led by
Hon. A. Tiberandwa wanted civil servants and teachers not to form a union or at least not to
be affiliated to NOTU but rather to have their own special arrangements. He argued;
"It was also raised during the discussion (at committee stage JB) that while it
is good to unionise teachers and civil servants we should also look at the
ability of government to pay if the teachers resort to strike, or civil servants.
For example in Kenya at the moment the country is paralysed; but teachers
cannot strike because they are not affiliated to COTU and that keeps the
society running. But if you allow teachers and civil servants to be affiliated by
law without choice, to a central union of workers, if the union calls the strike,
then the government must be prepared to pay just as much as other private
organisations. So it was suggested during the discussion that membership or
affiliation to NOTU should not be compulsory as it is in the Decree No. 20 of
1976.58
Hon. Tiberondwa therefore suggested that in order to protect government from strikes by civil
servants in sensitive positions and to ensure that security was maintained but also
"in order to ease their situation and to make sure that someone fighting for
their rights, they are entitled, as in the past to form and belong to trade and
professional associations whose roles and conduct are very much different
from those of trade Unions.59
Indeed Hon. Tiberondwa pushed the argument further to say that in the interest of
professionalism head-teachers and their deputies and heads of departments and their deputies
should be allowed to unionise or belong to their professional associations.
The position taken by government in response was quite interesting. It was more propelled by
the desire to have workers represented in NRC than the fear of strikes. Accordingly the
chairman of the Select Committee contended that:
58
59

NRC Debates, 5 May 1993. 59 Ibid.

Ibid.

17

"the fear raised in the House that allowing civil servants to unionise would
allow them to disrupt essential services and the country will come to a
standstill were allayed (by the Minister) by informing the Committee that
there is an existing machinery that regulates the trade disputes in relation to
essential services.. the Trade Disputes (Arbitration and Settlement) Act (Cap.
200) as amended by Decree No. 18 of 1974 and the Public Service
(Negotiating Machinery) Act (Cap. 278)... I also mentioned here that while we
were debating this some of the civil servants were in the gallery whom we
interviewed and they thought that those fears were misled (sic!) because...
although they are in the civil service, they are responsible people and will not
like to see services of the Government or the country disrupted by merely
being made unionised members. So they thought that those fears expressed by
Members of this House were probably not properly guided.60
Instead government and the Select Committee were essentially concerned that only senior
officers in the civil service and schools and institutions of learning were not unionised. They
therefore opposed Permanent Secretaries, Under-secretaries, Principals Assistant Secretaries,
etc and Head teachers and their deputies being trade union members. It would appear that the
debate centred around civil servants' and teachers' unionisation because these were consulted
through the existing associations, namely UTA (Uganda Teachers' Association) and UCSA
(Uganda Civil Servants' Association). The interests of principals, directors and departmental
heads in Institutions of Higher Learning were not seriously discussed or for instance of
Chiefs and the judiciary. Even the associations UTA, UCSA and NOTU did not look beyond
their own immediate membership. For instance the Makerere University Academic Staff
Association (MUASA) active at that time did not make a direct input. The association
probably believed that being an organisation of top intellectuals they could get their demands
attended to without becoming a union.

60

Ibid.

18

3.0 ARTICLE 40 OF THE 1995 CONSTITUTION

Between 1988-1992 the Uganda Constitutional Commission gathered views across the
country regarding most of the possible provisions in the projected new Constitution. The
National Organisation of Trade Unions (NOTU) which is the single national centre to which
all unions are compulsorily affiliated gave in its views to the UCC. Significant among its
demands were: ......61 The UCC considered workers rights as part and parcel of the broad
rights and freedoms of the individual under the Bill of Rights. Of particular concern to the
workers was the right to autonomously organise, poor or inadequate renumeration and
condition of work and poor or no rights at the termination of employment.62 Summarising the
workers' bitter submissions to the Commission regarding state violations of their rights they
stated:
The rights to form and run independent unions have often been interfered with.
Governments have attempted to co-opt union aders within their ranks and to silence
the independent voices of workers. Their rights to organise strikes and collective
bargaining have often been interfered with and many leaders of the workers have been
imprisoned or prosecuted.63
Accordingly the Commission went ahead to recommend that workers' and employers'
freedom association be recognised and in particular, inter alia, workers' right to belong to
unions of their choice, to collective bargaining and to strike.64
Of much interest should be the fact that although the Commission made these
recommendations it never included them directly in the Draft Constitution.65 Only the general
freedom of association66 and the rights to safe and healthy conditions of work, equal pay for
equal work and rights to rest and holidays were provided for in the Draft Constitution.67
During the CA debate one of the only two workers' representatives in that House proposed
the amendments that would eventually become Article 40(3). Hon. P. Amandrua (NOTU
representative) proposed that in addition to the general freedom of association which includes
61

See the Trade Union Decree 20/1976, S. 1 (1) thereof.

RU 1993:152.
63
Ibid.
64
Ibid:177-179.
65
See RU:Draft Constitution 1993.
66
Ibid.
67
Ibid, Art.67.
62

19

"freedom to form or join .... trade unions",68 the following provisions were critical, and
necessary namely,
"Every worker has a right:
a)

to form or join a trade union of his or her choice for the promotion and
protection of his or her economic and social interests;

b) to collective bargaining and representation; and

c) to withdraw his or her labour according to law".69
Of the 31 M.Ps who debated the motion in May 1993 the majority supported the Amandrua
amendments, that is 16 out of 32 (or 50%). Those who opposed it were 11 while the rest were
non-committal or raised other issues or thought the matter could be dealt with in other
provisions in the Constitution.
Interestingly many of the M.Ps who supported the Amandrua amendment were quite abreast
with the issues regarding workers' need for organisational rights in light of their weak
position vis-a-vis the employer, both local and foreign. Hon. Amandrua was supported by a
delegate from Arua Municipality, Zubairi Atamvaku who was also a Lecturer in Philosophy at
Makerere University.
The debate was much more focused, involved and extensive than the one which accompanied
the 1993 trade union law as we show below. Part of the reason could be that whereas the
1993 trade union law was initiated by the state and was aimed and furthering the interests of
the NRM regime in incorporating the workers' organisations and representatives into its
power structure and thereby minimise or neutralise a possible and organised source/forum of
political opposition, whereas the amendment in the Constitution was conceived by workers'
representatives in the Constituent Assembly.
Presenting the case for the amendments Hon. Amadrua put it simply
Mr. Chairman, when you look at these trade union rights, the workers' rights
have not been spelt (out-JB) here... if one reads this one will not know why or
68

Article 28(1)(e)1995 Constitution.

Current Article 40(3), 1995 Constitution. Coupled with these provisions was a separate article that required
"the employer of every woman worker... to accord her protection during pregnancy and after birth, in
accordance with the law", Article 40(4), 1995 Constitution.
69

20

what trade unions and workers stand for and their objectives and rights. So the
purpose of bringing this amendment is to address this kind of silence on this
particular issue .
...this particular Article 59(e) puts trade unions together with politicians
(freedom of association - JB) and many others and we all know sometimes
anything can happen. May be one politician might say this clause should he
dealt away with and automatically trade unions will not be in existence. So for
this purpose we would like to have trade union rights like any other rights
which have appeared in other clauses be constitutionalised... that is why we
have brought this motion here and the reasons are that unions or trade union
rights and worker's rights to form trade unions and their objectives are spelt
(out) here.70
Hon. Amandruna also further argued, in a simple and unpretentious manner that the rights
sought were in ILO
Conventions (presumably already ratified by Uganda-JB) and that the amendment was
merely asking for
a worker's right to form and join a trade union of his or her choice for the
promotion and protection of his or her economic and social interests and the
right to collective bargaining and representation.
Finally he argued for the right to strike. Hon.Amandrua also argued that the right of every
worker "to withdraw his or her labour according to law" was very important and is covered
by ILO Conventions. The question had been brought to the C.A but not considered before and
that is why, as he had promised, "we have brought it back".71
The supporter of the amendment Hon. Z. Atamvaku based his support on three arguments. He
contended that although we need investments and investors also need some benefit from their
enterprises Uganda could not make laws to benefit only foreign investors but also workers.
He further contended in opposition to those arguing that trade union protection would
discourage both foreign and local investors as had happened in Britain72 that
70

RU: Proceedings of the C.A. Official Report, Wednesday 14th September 1994:2116.
Ibid.
72
S. Kakungulu, ibid.2117.
71

21

the crisis faced by the British economy today is not a crisis of labour unions
but is the generic crisis of the political economy of imperialism (applause)
...the British economy was built on exploitation of other countries' resources
but today we have other powerful financial states who have emerged to
challenge their dominance of the world. That is the crux of the crisis of the
British economy, it has got nothing to do with any pro-trade union laws.73
Those opposed to the amendment essentially argued that the workers' rights proposed were
lopsided and did not give equal opportunities to the employer. Obiga Kania for instance
argued that the proposed amendment
means that an employer will have no right to reject the demand of employees
to form a union. That to me gives more unequal right to an employee without a
fair share for the employer because what you are saying is, if I am an
employer I have no right to refuse the formation of a union or the bringing of
union services into my fnm ....74
Secondly those opposed also emphasised, as did Hon. P. Bageya that the Constitution was for
nation building, not running the nation. It was for encouraging investment. He observed
much as I sympathise with the Movers, I would like to state very clearly that at
this rate we... are going to send away the potential investors, looking at the
case where even government itself had to retrench workers. It has not
retrenched them because it did not need them but economic conditions have
forced Government to do that. Therefore would-be employers, if we put this
amendment in place, would have to think twice before they come to invest
here.75
The third and more critical argument was about the need for being consistent with
liberalisation policies and market forces. Hon. C. Kandole put it succinctly
...as a Government policy or a country we are already talking of liberalisation;
liberalisation of trade which naturally calls for liberalisation of labour, which
naturally calls ...for competition. Now... if we are liberalising labour we
73

Ibid.: 2118-9.
Ibid.: 2120.
75
Ibid.: 2120.
74

22

cannot come in and begin making these laws which are only protective... I
think eventually you find once labour is liberalised, then you are going to take
the best according to the requirements.76
Finally it was argued that there was either no need for the provision because the
employer-employee relationship was contractual and the right "to be hired implies the
inherent right to retire from employment"77or a clause providing for the employer to
terminate services would have to be included. Accordingly they contended, "these are merely
terms of employment which can be contained in the contract of employment ...(or) repetitions
....that would be contained in any legislation that would come subsequently (sic!) to the
Constitution".78 Following these arguments another employers' spokesman Hon. Sebaana
Kizito, in the same spirit, presented an amendment "to equalise" employer and employees'
rights. It stated
Every employer has a right to expect satisfactory work from his workers
(laughter).79
Sebaana Kizito strongly contended that
we are forgetting that workers can only be workers' if there are employers. We
are talking about the rights of workers but we are not talking about the rights
of employers anywhere in this Constitution... Therefore employers must be in
a position to be protected by law just as workers are being protected by the
same law. This is what I call equality and we are seeking for equality of
treatment in this Constitution.80
The employer's motion was quickly defeated. The arguments in response to the employers
demands were basically two namely, that Ugandans could not seek to protect foreign
investors first before protecting Ugandan citizens and delegates ought to represent the people
not their own views but workers and other people.81 In particular Dr. Byaruhanga argued that
Since we are in a phase where exploitation must be expected, I believe that we
76

Ibid.: 2122.
Ibid, Wagidoso Madibo, 2124.
78
Ibid.
79
Ibid,: 2124.
80
Ibid.: 2125.
81
M. Pinto, 2123.
77

23

shall say it again and again in this Constitution that workers' rights be
protected.82
Secondly it was contended that though there are existing Conventions they have no bearing in
law unless "we pass counter legislation to implement that kind of Convention".83 The only
way that workers could be protected "is to include a provision in this Constitution and this is
what everybody is talking about. To say that you are repeating it, you can not say you should
keep this thing out of the Constitution because there is a law. The inclusion in the
Constitution makes it difficult for that agreement to be amended... at the whim of any
government that would come in power tomorrow".84
The Amandrua amendment was therefore passed in spite of strong employer opposition.
A number of lessons can be learnt from the enactment of this provision, the current Article 40
in the Constitution.
The new Article seems to have greatly and fundamentally improved the right to form and join
a trade union. This right is now unfettered unlike under the 1967 Constitution. The 1967
Constitution subjected the right to form or belong to a trade union to laws which are
"reasonably required in the interests of the national economy, the running of essential
services, defence, public safety, public order, public morality or public health,85; or "for the
purpose of protecting the rights and freedoms of other persons;86 or imposing restrictions
upon public officers;87 or "for the regulation of industrial or labour disputes;88"for the proper
management of trade unions..." ;89 or for the purposes of lawful detention or restriction of any
person.90 These restrictions either existed in the different legislations already in place before
the 1967 Constitution was promulgated or those that were to be enacted. They included: The
Trade Unions Act 1965 and that of 1970 and later the Trade Union Decree 1976; the Trade
Disputes (Arbitration and Settlement) Act, The Public Service (Negotiating Machinery) Act
and their various amendments. Apart from the question of strikes which is still regulated by
the Trade Disputes (Arbitration and Settlement) Act since labour can only be withdrawn
82

Ibid.: 2127.
Ibid. A. Nekyon, 2127.
84
Ibid.
85
Article 18(2) (a) of the 1967 Constitution.
86
Article 18(2) (b).
87
Article 18(2) (c).
88
Article 18(2) (e).
89
Article 18(2) (f).
90
Article 18(2) (d).
83

24

"according to law", all the other earlier restrictions under the 1967 Constitutions and other
laws have now been removed by the Constitution. (See J.J. Barya:1991 on recommendations
made).
How was this achieved?
First of all the workers' representatives in the CA though only 2 out of 284 delegates did
some preparation and lobbying of liberal CA delegates. Secondly this particular clause did
not cause a division along partisan lines: multipartyists versus Movementists. It was
essentially a class and ideological question. Employers (of either political grouping) generally
opposed the clause while the leftist CA delegates supported it.
Thirdly this particular clause did not appear to threaten the government, at least not directly.
In the CA government concentrated on areas that would enhance or threaten their hold onto
power such as: the question of political systems and federalism. Because the workers were
prepared and had enlisted the support of a number of delegates the state did not seriously
consider the implications of opening up and liberalising the freedom to form or join trade
unions. As we show later this constitutional freedom was to conflict with the government
policy of economic liberalisation and laissez-fare capitalism.
It should be pointed out that as it was later to transpire having the rights entrenched in the
Constitution is one thing; actually enjoying them is another. While it was relatively easy to
enact Article 40, putting it into practice against employers has been very difficult. We discuss
this question further when we deal with the problem of recognition vis-a-vis Article 40 of the
Constitution and s.19 of the Trade Union Decree 1976 international ILO standards.
4.0. IMPLICATIONS OF THE 1993 TRADE UNION LAW AND ARTICLE 40 OF THE
CONSTITUTION
The 1993 Trade Union Laws (Miscellaneous Amendments) Statute read together with Article
40(3) of the Constitution, in principle, represent major strides in the arena of workers'
organisational rights. Our concern in this section is to show to what extent the expanded
associational space is useful and to what extent it has actually been used. And what explains
the successes and the failures so far in this regard? To answer these questions we look at three
issues/sub-questions:

25

(i) Of what importance has workers' representation in parliament, including CA and NRC
(1994-1996) been?
(ii) How has that representation and the expanded associational space helped workers to deal
with the whole problematic of privatisation?
(iii) How have workers/unions handled the problem of recognition in light of the provisions
of the new laws?
(a) WORKERS' REPRESENTATION IN PARLIAMENT AND C.A.
Following the passing of Legal Notice No. l of 1986 (Amendment) Statute 1989 and the
Trade Union Laws (Miscellaneous Amendments) Statute 1993, three workers representatives
were elected to NRC: M. Mukasa, J. Pajobo and Bakabulindi from different Unions. For the
C.A. two workers' representatives were provided for (Constituent Assembly Statute,
No.6/1993, S. 4(2)(h), First Schedule). The Constituent Assembly Statute 1993 is the only
law that first specifically recognised NOTU as the body representing workers. The 1989 law
expanding NRC and the 1995 Constitution (Article 78(1)(c) did not mention NOTU as the
organisation through which workers' representatives in parliament would be elected "in
accordance with the constitution of that organisation".91 To the C.A. NOTU elected P.
Amandona and Teo Ssentongo, whereas the workers' representatives to the current parliament
are: S. Lyomoki, Bakabulindi and J. Pajobo.
Although worker's representatives to the CA were only two they were able to table Article
40(3) and Marshall the support of the majority of CA delegates to their side. In spite of strong
employer counter proposals and direct opposition to Article 40(3), it was nonetheless passed.
This was because of effective lobbying and the general nature of the provisions. A more
detailed provision would probably have alerted most CA delegates to scrutinise it more
closely. In general terms also the NRM wished to present itself as a promoter and defender of
human rights (apart from the right of political association). This is why even other general
socio-economic rights were also provided for. For workers Article 40(1) also provided that
parliament shall enact laws:
"(a) to provide for the right of persons to work under satisfactory, safe and
healthy conditions;
91

S. 37(3) (d), Statute 4/1996.

26

(b) to ensure equal payment for equal work without discrimination;

(c) to ensure that every work is accorded rest and reasonable working hours
and periods of holidays with pay, as well as remuneration for public holidays".
In addition Article 40(4) also provided that
"the employer of every woman worker shall accord her protection during
pregnancy and after birth, in accordance with the law."
As far as the NRC concerned workers representatives were there for a short time (1994-1996)
before the present parliament and NRC work was generally overshadowed by the CA
(1994-1995) which was sitting at the same time before passing the new Constitution in
September 1995(?).
However, workers' representation in both the NRC and the current parliament may be
assessed together.
Workers' leaders are generally agreed that their representation in parliament is useful in spite
of under-representation. It is common ground that most people including M.Ps are generally
ignorant about workers' issues. The presence of workers' M.Ps ensures that workers concerns
and issues are brought on board and considered by parliament.
Secondly by being present in parliament workers' M.Ps can lobby fellows M.Ps and sensitise
them on workers' interests. They can also directly present and articulate workers
demands instead of relying on the goodwill of third parties as in the past.92
As a result of workers' M.Ps presence in parliament for instance, and as far as general laws
are concerned, the M.Ps have been able to score some successes. For instance in the Uganda
Communications Act (No.B/1997) and The Electricity Act (No. of 1999) Workers M.Ps
inserted clauses that protected workers employment rights, levels of remuneration, terminal
benefits and pensions. In transfer of services from UPTC (Uganda Posts and
Telecommunications Corporation) for instance to the new companies pending privatisation
UPTC workers were to do so "on similar or better terms to those enjoyed by those employees
92

See interviews with D.N. Nkojjo, supra, and M. Mukasa (former Secretary-General, NOTU) and General
Secretary, NUCCPTE (National Union of Clerical, Commercial, Professional and Technical Employees) 22
January, 2000 and Hon. S. Lyomoki, General Secretary UMWU worker's and M.P, 17 January 2000.

27

before transfer".93 The retired and retiring employees were also assured of retirement benefits
and pensions and a Contributory Pensions Fund was to be put in place for the remaining
employees.94 The Electricity Act made similar provisions.
Secondly workers M.Ps are able to monitor the Executive and its actions to ensure
that workers interests are catered for or taken into account. The M.Ps were able to intervene
in the NSSF/Roko agreement for the completion of the NSSF (Workers') House. Roko had
refused to unionise its workers and the M.Ps and Building Union objected to its being
awarded the contract.95 Unfortunately it seems the Building Union itself failed to follow up
the matter or was compromised by Roko management, since to date no Recognition
Agreement has been signed although Roko was awarded the contract on this condition.
Workers M.Ps have been able to intervene in many management/worker disputes or Unionmanagement/ proprietor disputes and bring the two sides together or to a negotiating table
since most employers tend to take the workers' M.Ps more seriously than NOTU. The M.Ps
are seen to be more politically powerful and influential.
In short workers representation in parliament has been able to popularise workers interests
and the M.Ps have ever been able to achieve specific things. They also have the option of
bringing private members' bills where government stalls.96
Nonetheless the hurdles before workers' M.Ps are still enormous.
First of all, organisationally the M.Ps are not catered for within the NOTU structure, the trade
Union Laws and the Trade Union movement in general. Workers M.Ps were tacked on to the
NRM corporatist agenda and because the issue of their representation did not emerge from
the trade union movement itself, workers' M.Ps have no organic link with the trade union
movement apart from their own individual unions. Indeed no (clear) role is demarcated for
them in the Trade Union Decree, the NOTU constitution or any other individual trade union
Constitution. Thus there are no rules as to whom, when and how they should consult. To
whom are they supposed to report? NOTU has no provision for them, even at an informal
level. NOTU does not give them support for instance in terms of research facilities or
guidance on specific issues. Indeed at times a workers' MY has taken a specific position and
93

S.89, Act 8/1997.

Ibid, S. 90.
95
Interviews with S. Lyomoki and D.N. Nkojjo, Supra.
96
Interview with Hon. S. Lyomoki, supra.
94

28

some NOTU leaders have opposed and condemned him!97

Secondly workers M.Ps are too few compared to the tasks before them. According to one of
them, S. Lyomoki although their electoral college is NOTU they are supposed to represent all
workers in the country, even those who are not members of any union. This has meant that
individual workers approach them directly or they become obliged to solve or intervene in
very many labour issues where there are no proper channels of consultation and
communication. And though they are supposed deal with workers' issues throughout the
country they are given the same facilitation as other constituency-based M.Ps. This means
they are not properly facilitated to carry out their mandate.
Thirdly the levels of education of the workers' M.Ps except one are much lower than, on
average, that of the other M.Ps. They therefore may not cope with the level of research,
organisation and articulation of issues by other M.Ps. They therefore may not cope with the
level of research, organisation and articulation of issues by other M.Ps. Closely related to this
is the fact that most M.Ps are employers "one way or the other" and usually take anti-worker
positions.98 This is why whereas many labour laws have been revised after tripartite meetings
and drafts have been prepared by the Ministry of Labour since the early 1990s none of the
over five draft labour legislation has been debated and passed. Even the overwhelmingly
unfair workmen's Compensation Act (Cap. Laws - of Uganda) as amended in 1969 has been
before the current parliament since its inception in 1996 but to date has neither been debated
nor passed.99 Instead in 1993 government picked only the issue of expanding levels of
unionisation and representation in NRC from the draft legislation and left all the other
recommendations for a later date.
Fourthly, the politico-economic environment is contradictory but generally unfavourable to
workers' organisations and workers' M.Ps. This is because many employers don't understand
the role of the labour movement and put unnecessary hurdles before it. They think it is "for
strikes rather than harmonious labour relations".100 Further in a situation of a one-party or "no
party" state where there is no opposition to government, the workers are presented with no
alternative to appeal to when the government is not advancing their interests. This is more
disturbing when the law allowing them to associate is quite liberal and favourable on the one
97

Interview with S. Lyomoki, ibid.

Interview with M. Mukasa, supra
99
Ibid.
100
Interview with S. Lyomoki.
98

29

hand while the economic policies being pursued are generally anti-labour. The IMF/World
Bank-sponsored policies of privatisation, retrenchment, freezing of recruitment in the public
service and the other SAP conditionalities have undermined unions and enfeebled them
before workers. Their M.Ps find themselves unable to push for workers interests in the midst
of such policies pursued by IMF/World Bank and implemented by government.
Finally, one of the biggest hurdles for the trade union movement and workers' MPs is that the
union leadership nationally is politically, ideologically and strategically demobilised.
Although historically the trade Unions have tried to adopt an independent line from the state
and to organise and act autonomously101 it has no clear and definitive socio-political agenda
to advance and defend. This is why they are numb on important political questions. They lack
a political policy.102 This is why they had no policy on the referendum, on the political
organisations Bill, on the Other Systems Act, on the whole problem of privatisation, as we
show below, on annual Budgets and other issues that affect workers directly or indirectly. On
the other hand however other unionists like M. Mukasa103 argue that lack of a common
political position or policy on major political issues is a result of an inherently weak trade
Union movement, representing a small fraction of Uganda's essentially peasant population.
Trade Unions/Workers are, unlike in most other countries, not sufficiently organised to state
and defend political positions they may wish to take. For instance he was of the view that
most workers and union leaders are opposed to the referendum on political systems, as it
seeks to take away the right of political organisation and dissent, but are afraid to say so
because government would use its supporters in the trade union movement to disorganise
and/or defeat the trade unions.104 Hence the cautious timid-looking approach.
In brief the expansion of workers' organisational space was important and significant. Their
representation in parliament provides opportunities for advancing workers interests but
amidst great hurdles that must be overcome before that representation can become more
meaningful.
(b) HANDLING THE PROBLEMATIOUE OF PRIVATISATION
One of the biggest problems that has confronted the labour movement in the last decade
(1990-2000) the world over, but particularly in Africa, has been the question of privatisation
101

See J. Barya 1990; Interview with M. Mukasa, supra.

Interview with S. Lyomoki, supra.
103
Interview, supra.
104
Ibid.
102

30

as part of SAPs and the broader neoclassical policies of economic liberalisation put as
conditionalities by multilateral financial institutions and bilateral "aid givers". In Uganda the
question of privatisation became critical with the passing of the Public Enterprises Reform
and Divestiture Statute105 in 1991.
The role of workers and their Union leaders and M.Ps on this question is being assessed
before and after the 1993 laws expanding unionisation and inviting 3 workers M.Ps into
parliament.
In general there has been popular opposition in Uganda to the whole programme of
privatisation. Some oppose it on principle because it is argued that a poor underdeveloped
country like Uganda cannot rely on market forces to develop the economy and provide
employment. Conscious government intervention is necessary. Others have opposed not so
much the principle but rather the methods and practices of the privatisation process.
According to some trade unionists the NRM government on this point developed a culture of
ignoring popular social opinion and sentiments, the views of many M.Ps and the position of
workers and trade Unions.106 The Unions were opposed to the privatisation of UPTC for
security and strategic reasons and TUMPECO (with a monopoly of making vehicle number
plates) for the same reasons; Nile Hotel and International Conference Centre, Coffee
Marketing (CMB) and Uganda Commercial Bank (UCB) among others. The sale of Nile
Hotel and UCB and the problems attendant to those sales have so far vindicated the workers
because partly because of mismanagement by the new owners (Tunisians and Malaysians
respectively) but more so because of the underhand methods and procedures of the sales the
two enterprises have been repossessed by government about two years after privatisation.
Government is still hoping to re-privatise them. In case of CMB although over 10,000
workers were made redundant, CMB non-core assets sold, the main plant still stands unsold
because now it does not have much value since most private Coffee processors and exporters
have their own small plants.107
Thus government did not have clear policies and procedures to ensure proper and
fruitful privatisation of many enterprises. Above all although NOTU has advocated for an
employment policy for the country none exists. Thus privatisation takes place in the context
105

No. of 1993.
Interview with M. Mukasa, Supra.
107
Ibid.
106

31

of no employment policy. Indeed due to union pressure the Ministry of Labour obtained
funds from ILO in 1994/1995(?) to develop an employment policy but after reorganising a
few seminars, the whole thing fizzled out. At the same time nonetheless the Ministry of
Labour itself has been abolished and reduced to a mere department under the Ministry of
Gender, Labour and Community Development, since 1996.108
Compared to other countries that have carried out privatisation the government in Uganda did
not make any significant preparations for retraining and redeployment nor did it ensure that
even existing legal and contractual obligations for workers were satisfied before privatisation
(See J. Muwawu 1999 for details). Instead government has even signed contracts with buyers
of the former public enterprises guaranteeing that there is no obligation with respect to
existing employees or terms and conditions of new recruits (See .... UPTC Divestive
Documents, J.Muwawu, and Interview with Baingana).
In this situation what role has the expanded associational space and the three M.Ps for
workers played? The expansion of Unionising space for the public service made the workers'
representation in parliament relatively more representative of workers and this is why one of
the three M.Ps is from one of the new unions registered in 1994, the UMWU.
The presence of workers M.Ps in Parliament has however been able to ameliorate the
hardships of privatisation mainly after 1996. When the PERD statute was passed in 1993 the
workers were not represented and indeed little attention was paid to workers interests. The
only provisions relating to workers simply state...
All the botched privatisation cases were essentially commenced before 1996. But since 1996
(with the new parliament) workers M.Ps have been able to lobby and persuade other M.Ps
about taking workers' interests and rights seriously in the whole privatisation process. Having
mishandled the earlier sales/divestitures parliament has been more conscious in the
privatisation of Uganda Airlines, UPTC, and UEB.109 Other major enterprises pending
privatisation are likely to be better handled for instance. URC, Sheraton Hotel, Kilembe
Mines, National Housing and Construction Corporation, et cetera.
The workers M.Ps have also been able to insert pro-worker clauses, as seen above in the
Communications Act and the new Electricity Act. At times because information on
108
109

Ibid, see also New Vision 1996.

See Interviews with D. Nkojjo & S. Lyomoki, supra.

32

privatisation is more readily available to M.Ps they have been able to advise relevant union
leaders to prepare themselves better in negotiations for privatisation. In other instances where
privatisation has already taken place and the new owners want to undermine workers and
union interests workers' M.Ps have intervened as they did in the case of Hotel Equatoria and
UTC workers.110
It would appear therefore that workers' M.Ps have not been able to stop and fundamentally
change the nature and course of privatisation but rather aspects of its content with regard to
workers' interests especially terminal benefits and rights after privatisation. Mere
representation in parliament has not in itself helped workers and unions to deal with the
fundamentals of privatisation.
(C) THE ISSUE OF UNION RECOGNITION
The issue of recognition is a basic and fundamental one for any trade union because without
recognition a trade union cannot bargain collectively with the employer. As we argued in
section 3.0 above under the 1967 Constitution the right to form and join a trade union was
subjected to many exception.111
Under the 1995 Constitution those exceptions were removed and as such the freedom to form
and join a trade union is now unfettered. However the provisions of the Trade Union Decree
1976 contradict the constitutional provisions. The most important provisions in the Decree
which are a fetter to unionisation are:
a)

The requirement under s.8(3) that in order to be registered every trade union must

have not less than one thousand registered members;"

b)

the provision under s.19(1)(e) that

"every employer shall be bound to recognise a registered trade union to which
at least 51 per cent of his employees have freely subscribed their membership
and in respect of which the Registrar has issued a certificate under his hand
certifying the same to be a negotiating body with which the employer is to
deal in all matters affecting the relationship between the employer and those

110

See Sessional Committee on Social Services: Report resolution on former UTC workers; workers M.Ps have
also pressurised the owner of Hotel Equatoria to begin negotiations for recognising the Hotels Union; see also
Interview with S. Lyomoki, Supra
111
Article 18, 1967 Constitution.

33

of his employees who fall within the scope of membership of the registered
trade union.
It is important to rote that as a result of complaints from trade unions, on the
unconstitutionality of the above two provisions, to the Ministry of Labour, in 1997 Uganda's
Attorney-General gave an opinion that agrees with the trade unions. The Attorney General
was of the view that:
Articles (1)(e) of the Constitution provides that every person shall have a right
to freedom of association which shall include freedom to form and join
associations or unions, including trade unions. This right is further reinforced
by Article 40(3) of the Constitution. Furthermore article 36 of the constitution
provides that minorities have a right to participate in decision -making
processes. Sections 8(3) and 19(e) of the... Trade Unions Decree are
inconsistent with articles 29(1)(e), 36 and 40(3) of the Constitution. Article
2(2) of the Constitution provides that if any other law is inconsistent with any
of the provisions of the Constitution, the Constitution shall prevail, and all the
other laws shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be void. Clearly the quoted
provisions of the said Trade Unions Decree are void since they, in terms of the
quoted constitutional provisions, curtail the right of persons to form or join
trade unions.112
In spite of the above legal position by government's legal counsel trade unions continue to be
refused recognition even when they have fulfilled the requirements of the old law particularly
by organising and recruiting more than 5 I % of workers in a given enterprise or firm.
In the past decade 1990-2000 most trade unions have been losing rather than increasing on
their membership as a result of liquidation of some enterprises, privatisation and change of
employer especially with the return of properties expropriated from Asians in 1972-1973 by
Idi Amin which were returned to them in the 1990s. The problem of recognition arises:
a)

when a public enterprise is privatised and the new owner is given freedom to

recognise or not recognise an existing union;

b)

when a new enterprise is set up by foreigners (usually called "foreign

112

Letter from B.M Katureebe, Minister of Justice /Attorney General to The 3rd Deputy Prime Minister,
Minister of Labour and Social Welfare, dated 9th September 1977.

34

investors") or by (few) local people;

c)

when a union recruits membership in any existing enterprise and asks for

recognition; and
d)

when new unions are registered especially after the 1993 law and recruit

members in hitherto non-unionable enterprises or employment areas and seek

recognition such as the case of UMWU and UCSU.
The experience with regard to recognition of unions has been very negative throughout the
1990s in spite of both the 1993 law and the constitutional provisions in place since 1995.
First of all although both UMWU and USCU were registered with the Registrar of Trade
Unions in 1994 to date the government has not yet signed any Recognition Agreement has
not yet signed any Recognition Agreement with them. Meetings have been taking place
between these unions and government but a number of hurdles still exist because the unions
and government still disagree on many issues. However in spite of lack of a formal
Recognition Agreement the UMWU has been able to reach some understanding with many
local district administrations to grant them a check-off arrangement whereby their members'
monthly subscriptions are deducted and paid to the union. Recognition Agreements have
however been signed with a few private hospitals. This has been possible because of the
vigilance and commitment of the leaders of this particular union.113
Secondly many employers have in spite of the law refused to recognise unions even in
enterprises where unions existed before they were privatised and/or changed ownership. The
most significant examples are in the textile, hotel and construction industries. The Uganda
Textile, Garments, Leather and Allied Workers' Union (UTGLAWU) was, up to the end of the
1980s, one of the biggest and most significant unions. It had union members in 13 companies
with a total membership of 17,140.114 By the end of 1996 its membership had reduced to 2420
in 16 companies/factories but is recognised by only one textile company, the Uganda FishNet Manufactures Ltd. which was also threatening to withdraw its recognition of the union
like the rest. In the biggest textile company NYTIL 9000 workers lost their jobs in
preparation for its privatisation. The new owner NYTIL Picfare has refused to recognise the
Union. The agreement for the sale of the assets of NYTIL (Nyanza Textile Industries Ltd) and
113

Interviews with S.Lyomoki and M. Mukasa, supra.

See ILO: Complaint against the Government of Uganda presented by the International Textile Garment and
Leather Workers' Federation (ITGLWF), Report No. 316, Case No. 1996, ILOLEX).
114

35

Government provided, among other things, that

the purchaser shall be at liberty to take on any person formerly employed by the seller
on such terms and conditions as the purchaser may agree with such employee; and the
purchaser shall not be bound by any arrangements or contracts made by the seller with
any trade union and shall not be liable for any claim regarding unionised workers
previously employed by the seller.115
This particular clause seems to have strengthened NYTIL Picfare in refusing to recognise the
union in spite of its having 1,100 members in the Company. Because it is one of the biggest
textile companies the other textile companies have followed suit and refused to recognise the
union.116 The issue has been reported to the Industrial Court for determination.
The hotel industry especially those hotels owned by one Karim Hirji have persistently refused
to recognise unions. However as a result of concerted pressure from NOTU, the Hotels
Unions and Workers' M.Ps as well as some donors, this particular owner has agreed to enter
negotiations with the Hotels Union regarding Recognition Agreements. Some donors,
particularly FES (Friedrich Ebert Foundation) had sometime in 1998 decided and publicised
the decision that they would not support any activity with their partners (trade unions, NGOs
and Civil Society Organisations generally, etc) if it was held in hotels that do not recognise
trade unions.117 Thus concerted pressure even without government support using S.19(1)(e) of
the Trade Unions Decree can produce results.
In the case of the construction and other industries examples abound relating to
non-recognition. The usual problem is that workers leading the Unionisation drive are usually
victimised by dismissal, demotion or transfer where possible. One of the interesting examples
in the construction industry has been the case of Roko Construction Ltd. and the Building
Union. In 1999 when the NSSF (National Social Security Fund) building contract was up for
bidding ROKO was one of the companies that put in its bid. Yet NSSF building is a workers'
house being built from workers' NSSF monthly contributions. And Roko had refused to
recognise a Union in its workplace. The Building Union, NOTU and Workers' M.Ps wrote to
the Minister of Labour advising him not to award the contract to Roko unless it recognised
the union. Meetings were held with the Minister of Labour and ROKO and it was agreed that
115

Quoted in Ibid.
Ibid.
117
Information within the authors knowledge, following his various dealings with FES; and Interview with
S.Lyomorei.
116

36

ROKO had to recognise the Building Union before it could be awarded the contract; but
somehow in-between the Union leadership agreed that ROKO could be awarded the contract
and the Recognition Agreement would be signed later. To date it has not been signed.
Apparently the union leaders was either tricked or compromised118 into this situation. The fact
that the union has not seriously pursued the matter for several months may point to the latter.
In conclusion it would seem that the 1993 law and the 1995 constitutional significantly
expanded the association space available to workers in forming and joining trade unions to
advance their labour-related interests. The associational space was expanded initially because
of government interest in including workers in its corporatist strategy. When this space was
opened government did not find it easy to use it as they wished. It also became a weapon in
the hands of the workers and unions.
Due to their numerical weakness both in the country and in parliament workers have not been
able to effectively respond to the problems of privatisation in their own interests. However
the presence of M.Ps for workers in parliament has at least, from 1996 onwards, averted the
worst and recorded some successes. Lobbying, planning and organisation have been
responsible for most of this success.
The question of recognition has clearly unearthed the contradictory nature of the
government's policies. Whereas freedom of association is proclaimed and guaranteed by the
Constitution and buttressed by the 1993 trade union law, the logic of the neo-liberal economic
policies being pursued negates that right. Belief in market forces determining the workeremployer relationship with little state intervention threatens to undermine the rights clearly
laid down on paper. This implies that the struggles by workers and trade union need to be
handled in a more sophisticated and holistic manner that takes into account and deals with
government policy in general and not on a piecemeal basis as has so far been the case.
5.0 SOME PROVISIONAL CONCLUSIONS
This study has shown a number of things and raised issues for further research and debate.
We may from the analysis above make the following provisional conclusions:
1.

Trade Unions had for a long time demanded to be involved in the decision-making

processes of the state and were initially allowed and given representation on Boards of
118

Information obtained from various trade union leaders, December 1999.

37

Directors of public enterprises. The initiative to have workers representatives in parliament

was a result of NRM's corporatist strategy and not directly a result of workers' or unions'
demands. However what is interesting is that although the NRM wanted to create a separate
body of workers through which the workers be represented in NRC the unions were able to
resist such a state-sponsored and controlled body and maintained their organisational
autonomy. This was a result of unity on the issue in the trade union movement.
2.

Although the workers were divided on the question of unionisation between

traditional professional and white-collar employees (civil servants and teachers associations)
on the one hand and mainstream unions as the meetings organised by NRM and NRC debates
on the 1993 law showed, eventually the idea that unionisation was the way forward
triumphed. The attempt to divide workers on this narrow elitist basis failed although so far a
dispute among the teachers between UTA and UATU exists as both have applied to the
Registrar of Trade Unions for registration and neither of them has been registered as yet.
Hopefully they will resolve their differences and register as one union.
In fact because the issue of workers joining the NRC was a state initiative no one seriously
opposed it in the NRC. Instead the only voices against it were the professionalists (civil
servants and teachers, especially the latter) who either did not wish to be unionised or if
unionised wished to be separate from the mainstream unions and not affiliated to NOTU.
The workers and trade unions have been able to use the expanded associational space only to
a limited extent. Taking the examples used as a guide the expanded space has in itself been
insufficient to help them confront the fundamental issue of privatisation, massive
redundancies and lack of new job opportunities. They have been unable to successfully
confront the neo-liberal economic policies of government prodded by IMF, World Bank and
bilateral donors.
However the unions have been, to a large extent, successful in ameliorating the adverse
effects of privatisation since 1996/1997 by utilising workers' M.Ps in parliament to sensitise
fellow M.Ps, lobby them and intervene on behalf of workers with respects to their rights
affected by the privatisation process. A number of rights for workers have been entrenched in
some laws privatising certain public enterprises. Workers and unions in yet-to-be privatised
enterprises should be able to utilise this experience.
3.

The liberal trade Union law of 1993 and the Constitutional provisions on workers
38

freedom of association (Article 29(1)(e)) and in particular freedom to form and join trade
unions of their choice for the promotion of their economic and social interests are quite an
achievement for Ugandan workers. However these legal rights are contradicted in practical
terms by the neo-liberal economic policies that emphasize market forces as the major
determinants of employer-employee relations and industrial relations in general. Thus very
many employers (especially the new "foreign" investors and the Asians that repossessed the
properties expropriated by Idi Amin) have been able to refuse to recognise trade unions in
spite of the fact that such refusal is in most cases illegal and unconstitutional. One of the
biggest challenges for trade unions therefore, today, remains how to challenge these
neo-liberal economic policies and to enjoy and advance the existing legal and constitutional
rights.

39

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Barya B.J.J.
1990: Law, State and Working class organisation in Uganda 1962-1987, Ph.D thesis,
University of Warwick.
1991: Workers and the Law in Uganda, CBR Working Paper No. 17.
Constitutions of the Republic of Uganda 1962, 1967, and 1995.
ILO 1988 Complaint Against the Government of Uganda Presented by the International
Textile, Garment and Leather Workers' Federation (ITGLWF), Report
No.316, Case 1996. ILOLEX.
Interviews with
(i) E. Baingan 21 December 1999
(ii) S. Lyoomoki 17 January 2000
(iii) M. Mukasa 22 January 2000
(iv) D. N. Nkojjo 15 January 2000
Muwawu J. 1999 : The Impact of Privatisation Labour Rights in Uganda, LL.M thesis,
Makerere University.
NRC (National Resistance Council Debates 5 May 1993 (Mimeo, Unpublished).
New Vision (News Paper).
RU (Republic of Uganda) 1993: Report of the Uganda Constitutional Commission - Analysis
and Analysis and Recommendations, UPPC, Entebbe.
RU (Republic of Uganda) 1995: Proceedings of the Constituent Assembly, Official Report,
UPPC, Entebbe.

40