1. 1
Battle Strategy: A Critique of the Right to Strike in Zambian Labour Law
Ngosa Dennis
Abstract
After 50 years of Independence, the act of participation in a strike even for a good cause is
considered illegal. As the law currently stands in Zambia, undertaking strike action despite having
the provision that allow for employees to go on strike particularly section 76 of the industrial and
labour relations act, cap 269, has become almost legally impossible in Zambia as the law do not
allow for such a situation to arise. The result of the study also showed that the right to strike is
subject to lengthy procedural requirements and because of this draconia in law, workers are
subjected to intimidation and their trade union rights are widely flouted. It is in this light that the
paper examines the extent to which the Zambian Labour gives effect to the Right to Strike as
enshrined in the International Labour Law, and whether the Zambian labour laws provide adequate
legislation and remedies for parties involved in Labour disputes. The paper also examined the
options available for reduction on industrial strikes in general and provide solution for trade
unions, employer organization, employees and the government to improve their industrial
relations, economic bargaining and collective understanding among them as actors in Industrial
Relations.
Keywords: The Right to strike; Constitution; collective bargaining; labour law; Labour Relations
Act.
The right to strike is one of the most formidable and potent weapons at the disposal of employees.
The cardinal importance of this right has earned veiled acclaim and universal recognition by
international law. The right to strike has now been accepted as an indispensable component of a
democratic society and a fundamental human right (Okene, 2007). There is no doubt that workers
throughout the world are alike in the sense that they desire recognition, satisfaction, fair wages
and salaries, job security, redress of wrongs and good working conditions (Okene, 2007). The
strike is an essential tool of trade unions all over the world for the defense and promotion of the
rights and interests (Kahn-Freund, 1977)
However, in practice the right to strike to a large extent has been rendered impotent by an interplay
of factors in each given jurisdiction. According to Ben-Israel (1988) the prodigy of the strike is
one of the crucial problems of contemporary industrial relations because it lies at the very core of
the legal regulation of industrial conflict. In Zambia, the right to strike exists on paper but its
practical realization is a moot point that exist between the employers and the employees or between
the government and the civil servants as well as a myriad of restrictions on the exercise of the right
to strike itself. The disagreements usually result in strikes which are often termed to be illegal.
The legislation governing the industrial action in Zambia is the most crucial and contentious aspect
of labour law. This is because anytime the labour movement threatens to or withdraw their labour
in demand of improved condition of service, the government declares the strike illegal and are
quick to point out that the strike is clearly of a political nature because they are in breach of the
provisions of the Act and do not represent the specific interests of workers in a given activity, but
is just the expression of pure and simple opposition to the social policy of the Government. As

2. 2
Hyman (1989:171) argued, every important trade union struggle over wages and conditions has
today a political dimension, since it impinges directly on government economic strategy.
While workers may exercise their right to strike or protest, the unprecedented levels of work
stoppages witnessed negate the principle of making sure that things are done within the rule of
law, and are therefore, not encouraged. Despite so many strike actions or threats of strike action,
the Industrial and Labour Relations Act Cap 269 of the laws of Zambia regulating strike action
seems to be so rigid on employees to go on a legal strike unless the certification process is
followed. The labour laws in the country and in particularly section 76 of the Industrial and Labour
Relations Act, Cap 269 of the laws of Zambia allows workers to strike as long as the proper legal
steps are taken such as declaring a dispute, calling for the conciliation process or taking the
arbitration route and/or taking strike action. It is a well-known fact that there can be no equilibrium
in industrial relation without a freedom to strike (Davies and Freedland, 1983:292). The rationale
behind collective bargaining is to maintain peace. As Halton Cheadle (1987) puts it, it is one of
the ironies of collective bargaining that its very objective industrial peace should depend on the
threats of conflicts.
Therefore, the right to strike is a keystone of modern industrial society. No society which lacks
this right can be democratic. Any society which seeks to become democratic must secure that right
(MacFarlane, 1981:12.). In the case of Tramp Shipping Corporation v. Greenwich Marine Incorp.,
the Lord Denning stated that a strike is:
a concerted stoppage of work by men, done with a view to improving their wages or
conditions of employment, or giving vent to a grievance or making a protest about
something or sympathising with other workmen in such endeavour. It is distinct from
stoppage brought by an external even such as a bomb scare or by apprehension of danger
((Tramp Shipping Corporation v. Greenwich Marine Incorp (1975) ICR 261:276)
Industrial strike, then, is the mechanism which produces that increment of pressure necessary to
force agreement when the differences are persistent and do not yield to persuasion or argument
around the bargaining table (Nkemdirim, 1967). This was emphasized by the key statement made
by the International Labour Organization (ILO) Committee of Experts on the basic principle of the
right to strike on the application of Convention and Recommendation when it stated:
The right to strike is one of the essential means available to workers and their organizations
for the promotion and protection of their economic and social interest. These interest not
only have to do with obtaining better working conditions and pursuing collective demands
of an occupational nature but also with seeking solutions to economic and social policy
questions and to labour problems of any kind which are of direct concern to the
workers.(ILO, 1983, 1998,1999-2003)
The protection given to this fundamental right to strike is thus based on the fundamental
importance of strike to collective bargaining. In the absence of a right to strike collective
bargaining is no more than collective begging (Ewing & Hendy, 2012).
Strike action are a necessary weapon for an employee in light of the fact that it is just by the threat
of altogether withdrawing their labour, or really completing along these lines, that they have any

3. 3
force. It is in this regard that labour law issues becomes cardinal to our society and continues to be
a major component in labour relations and collective bargaining.
The Right to Strike as enshrined in International Labour Organization
The ILO, which is the United Nations (UN) body responsible for employment and rights at work,
has served as the ultimate reference point for international law on labour issues since it was
founded in 1919. The ILO recognizes the important nature of the concept of the right to strike. The
ILO on several occasions has taken a position on the subject and it has built up a body of principles,
recognizing that the right to strike constitutes an intrinsic corollary to the right to organize (ILO,
1996) and a fundamental right of the workers and of their organizations. As early as 1927, the ILO
explicitly recognized that the right to strike existed and was linked directly to freedom of
association. Convention 87 on Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organize
1948 is the most relevant in the present context and it provides in Article 2 that,-
"Workers without distinction whatsoever shall have the right to establish and, subject only
to the rules of the organization concerned, to join organizations of their own choosing
without previous authorization." (ILO, 1948)
However, as fundamental as this right has been declared to be, it is surprising that the right to strike
is not expressly recognized or provided for in the ILO constitution or any of the International
Labour Conventions and Recommendations. Therefore, it must be mentioned here that the right to
strike is not an absolute right and may be subjected to certain legal conditions or restrictions, and
may even be prohibited in exceptional circumstances (ILO, 1994).
Nevertheless, the absence of explicit provisions does not mean that the ILO disregards the right to
strike or refuses to deal with the appropriate means of safeguarding its protection (ILC, 1947).
Significantly, two resolutions of the International Labour Conference which provided guidelines
for ILO policy emphasize recognition of the right to strike in member states. The first resolution,
“Resolution concerning the Abolition of Anti-Trade Union Legislation in the States Members of
the International Labour Organization” called for the adoption of “laws … to ensure the effective
and unrestricted exercise of trade union rights, including the right to strike by workers (ILO,
1957).” The second resolution, “Resolution Concerning Trade Union Rights and their Relation to
Civil Liberties” called for action in a number of ways “with a view to considering further measures
to ensure full and universal respect for trade union right in their broadest sense”, paying particular
attention, inter alia, to the right to strike (ILO, 1970; Gernigon et. al, 1996)
The ILO through the decisions of its Supervisory bodies, especially those of the Committee on the
Freedom of Association (CFA) and the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions
and Recommendations (CEACR) has held that the right to strike is one of the essential means
available to workers and their organizations for the promotion of their economic and social
interests (ILO, 1996). The CFA has upheld that strikes are inextricably part of trade union activities
(ILO, 2006). The Committee has always recognized the right to strike as one of the essential means
available to workers and their organizations for the promotion and protection of their economic
and social interests (ILO, 2006).

4. 4
Further, the ILO Supervisory bodies have always referred to the right to strike when they have
considered applications of Articles 3 which lays down the right of workers’ organizations to
organize their activities and to formulate their programs freely and states that the public authorities
shall “refrain from any interference which would restrict this right or impede the lawful exercise
thereof and Article 8 of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organize
Convention 1948 (No.87) by the various member states. The Supervisory bodies have reaffirmed
the principle of the right to strike subject only to the reasonable restrictions that might be imposed
by the law.
These provisions certainly confirm that the ILO recognizes the right to strike as a legitimate trade
union activity. It is perhaps the most potent weapon possessed by labour to force its demands upon
an employer, for without it trade unions cannot function effectively. However, the ILO does not
regard the right to strike as an absolute right and has created some exceptions. As reaffirmed by
Article 28of the Charter, it is to be exercised in accordance with European Union law and national
laws and practices (COM, 2012).
The ILO also has pointed out that certain employees in the public service may be restricted from
exercising the right to strike provided this only covers those public servants “exercising authority
in the name of the state (ILO, 1994).” Restriction on the right to strike is also extended to
employees in “essential services”, in the strict sense of the term, i.e. services whose interruption
could endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population (1996).
Recognizing the Right to Strike under the Zambian Labour Law: an overview
The International Labour Organization (ILO) has recognized the important nature of the concept
of the right to strike and has on several occasions taken a position on this subject and it has built
up a body of principles, recognizing that the right to strike constitutes an intrinsic corollary to the
right to organize (ILO, 2006) and a fundamental right of the workers and of their organizations.
As early as 1927, the ILO explicitly recognized that the right to strike existed and was linked
directly to freedom of association. And to this effect, Zambia has ratified ILO Convention no. 87,
the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organize Convention, and ILO
Convention no. 98, the Right to Organize and Collective Bargaining Convention, in 1996.
Zambian Government by and large has tried to bring the Conventions into local labour law by
enacting legislation that implements these conventions. These standards have been heavily
instrumental towards the achievement of industrial peace and progress and therefore the ratified
standards have found themselves in the Zambian legislation, by a process of domestication of these
conventions and they are being applied through provisions of Industrial and Labour Relations Act
Cap 269 of the Laws of Zambia which provide for strike actions as long as the procedures are
adhered to as set out in section 78.
Following the ratification of the right to organize and Collective Bargaining Convention No. 98,
the Zambian government is determined and committed to ensuring that protection is given through
legal provisions to workers’ and employers’ organization (Seti, 2012). The government has also
over time put in place policies that are meant to promote workers' and employers' sensitisation
programmes on the need to resolve labour problems through the social dialogue process
(Shamenda, 2011). The need for social dialogue was reinforced by the African Union Declaration

5. 5
and Plan of Action in Ouagadougou in 2004, which endorsed the Decent Work Country Agenda
and recognized the role of social dialogue in employment policy issues.
This was underlined by the 2008 ILO Declaration on Social Justice for a fair Globalization which
states that “in a world of growing interdependence and complexity and internationalization of
production, social dialogue and the practice of tripartism between governments and the
representative organizations of workers and employers within and across borders are now more
relevant to achieving solutions and to building up social cohesion and the rule of law through,
among other means, international labour standards (ILO, 2008).” The legal frame work for social
dialogue is pivotal and national legislations and key conventions that relate to social dialogue such
as ILO Conventions 87, 98 and 144 are the pillars of social dialogue. Despite these efforts by the
Zambian government to resolve these challenges, the Zambian labour law on labour rights and
particularly the right to strike poses a milestone in arresting this diaconia in Law.
The effectiveness of the right to strike is dependent on adequacy of the trade union’s rights and
the threat of industrial action. Industrial action has assumed such prominence in Zambia that
unions find it impossible to engage or negotiate with employers without making a constant threat
to strike or protest. John Paul II (1981), in his Laborem Exercens on “The Importance of Unions”,
explained that one method used by unions in pursuing the just rights of their members is the strike
or work stoppage, as a kind of ultimatum to the competent bodies, especially the employers. But
however, in most cases, the law lays down a series of conditions or requirements that must be met
in order to render a strike lawful. The Committee on Freedom of Association has specified that
such conditions should be reasonable and in any event not such as to place a substantial limitation
on the means of action open to trade union organizations (ILO, 1996d).
The major source of the Zambian legislation on labour matters is the Constitution. Part III of the
Constitution provides for fundamental rights and freedoms and of importance, Article 11(b) allows
for freedom of conscience, expression, assembly, movement and association. These rights are only
protected to the extent that they do not prejudice the rights and freedoms of others or the public
interest. The Constitution of Zambia unlike the South African one, does not explicitly act as a
reference point for the right to strike. However, the constitution provides for the right for protection
from slavery and forced labour. Article 14 (1) states that; a person shall not be held in slavery or
servitude and 14 (2) A person shall not be required to perform forced labour.
The Zambian Constitution (1996) only acts as a reference point for the protection of freedom of
assembly and association. The Constitution of Zambia gives this right to the workers under Article
21 (1). In Article 21 (1) of the Constitution, spells out the right of workers to form a trade union
and belong to one without hindrance. Article 21 of the Constitution of Zambia provides for the
right to freedom of assembly and association. The Article states, inter alia:-
No person shall be hindered in the enjoyment of his freedom of assembly and
association...in particular to form or belong to any political party, trade union or other
association for the protection of his interests (Constitution of Zambia, 1996).
This can be seen as the basic provisions of the human rights in these two Article provisions. Even
though Article 21 protects freedom of association, it is subject to certain limitations.

6. 6
The other source of the right to strike in Zambia is the Industrial and Labour Relation Act which
gives effect to this right by providing a detailed framework on how it should be exercised. The
ILR Act of the laws of Zambia governs the operations of trade unions, industrial action, and the
relationship between employers and unions. The Act in Section 5 (1) (a) gives the employee the
right to take part in the formation of trade union and the right to belong to a trade union of his
choice.' Furthermore, these provisions empower every employee with the right to strike even
though the constitution does not explicitly do so. Despite the enactment of the law, there are many
cases where trade union recognition is almost impossible. The best scenario of this case is the
February 2014 case involving the Hotel, Catering, Tourism and Allied Workers Union of Zambia
(HZTAWUZ) and Adventure Group of Companies (Times of Zambia; 2014:4). The union alleged
that the Adventure Group of Companies were stopping workers from joining labour unions to
avoid bargaining rights. This attitude by the employer and the employer’s organization brings
about agitation with the employee which leads to protest and or strikes.
Failure by the constitution to provide clear reference on the right to strike, employers and
employers’ organization has taken advantage of manipulating the employees. The constitution
further articulates in Art. 112(J) on the Directive Principle of the state policy that; ‘the State shall
recognise the right of every person to fair labour practices and safe and healthy working
conditions’. Coupled to this, the constitution further adds in the Directive Principle of State Policy
that;
“The Directive Principles of State Policy set out in this Part shall not be justiciable and
shall not thereby, by themselves, despite being referred to as rights in certain instances, be
legally enforceable in any court, tribunal or administrative institution or entity.”
There is no doubt that strikes are as a result of unfair labour practices and here the supreme law of
the land, the constitution states that these cannot be litigated on if one wants to depend on the
constitution. Despite the recommendations made by the Mwanakatwe Constitutional Review
Commission, (Government paper No.1, 1995) the government up to now has not included the
protection of the right to strike in the Constitution.
Furthermore, none of the substantive labour rights, that is to say the right to fair labour practices,
right to bargain collectively, and so forth are included in the Constitution.
Zambia’s adherence to International labour standards
Freedom of Association is protected in multiple international instruments, as noted above.
According to all the Conventions dealt with, all workers should be free, without governmental
interference, to choose which union to establish or to join. Zambia ratified ILO conventions No 87
and 98 in 1996. The conventions promote freedom of association and uphold the right to organize.
Before ratifying the conventions in 1996, the provisions and recommendations of these
conventions were already incorporated in the industrial relations legislation before ratification.
The basis of the legal framework for industrial relations in Zambia is founded on the fundamental
rights in Part III of the Constitution of Zambia. Article 21 and sub article (1) states that “...no
person shall be hindered in the enjoyment of his freedom of association..... and in particular to
form or belong to any....trade union for the protection of his/her interests”. These provisions
enshrined in the national constitution have been incorporated and expanded in the Industrial and

7. 7
Labour Relations Act, the main labour legislation as discussed in previous chapters. The other
legal instruments for industrial relations in Zambia include the Employment Act, the Minimum
Wages and Conditions of Employment Act, and the Employment of Young Persons and Children
Act. Despite ratifying and incorporating these conventions into our law, workers have little to
smile at when it comes to the right to strike.
Restriction on the Right to Strike in Zambian Labour Law
The Zambian labour situation has consistently been subjected to large industry-wild strikes. As
already shown in chapter one, strikes are recognized as legitimate actions that may be undertaken
by workers or employers in furtherance of their dispute. However, such actions become lawful
only if they are resorted to after due process and only if they do not involve “essential services” as
provided for by the ILRA. Unfortunately, these strikes have, from time to time, been plagued by
intimidation from either the employer organization or the government on the employee. From a
legal perspective, it is however, important to note that the right to strike is strictly limited to parties
to the dispute and that certain requirements need to be met for a strike to be lawful. This means
that sympathy strikes over political matters are not legitimate under the law. It is also important to
note that no strike may take place after the Industrial Relations Court has given a decision. Even
then, there are also inherent restrictions incumbent upon employees participating in such strikes.
The legal recognition afforded to a protected strike by no means affords employees or trade unions
a “blank cheque” to participate in any and all forms of conduct which could force the employer to
accede to their demands (Wyk and Heerden, 2014). There are considerable restrictions levied
upon strikers and the indiscretion of such restrictions can, and do, have serious implications for all
parties involved. These restrictions must be seen as a necessary adjunct to the fundamental right
to strike entrenched within section 76 of the ILRA of the Zambian Labour Laws and highlighted
in international labour organization agreements. An appropriate balance needs to be preserved
between employer, employee and trade union to ensure economic viability and an employment
relationship built upon trust and mutual goodness.
In spite of the legal limitations on the right to strike in many organization, strikes have nevertheless
occurred to draw attention to poor working conditions and set in motion negotiations or
conciliation. In the recent past, the public service has been rocked by spontaneous strikes over
failure by the Government to implement terms of a concluded collective agreement on salary
increment and other conditions of service. Nevertheless, it must be known that prior to engaging
in strike action, employees are obligated to follow the procedure set out in part IX of the
ILRA. Failure to do so may result in the strike being declared illegal. Striking employees may
then legitimately be dismissed for participating in the strike (Times of Zambia, 2013), provided
the correct procedure is followed and that this action is deemed to be fair in the circumstances.
Restrictions on Public and Essential Workers
Further, the Restrictions on strikes in the interests of peace augurs well with ILO Convention and
similarly the need to maintain essential services by curtailing circumstances under which a strike
can be resorted to bode well with the Conventions. Nevertheless, the restrictions on strikes by
public service and essential service workers should be reciprocated by compensatory guarantees.

8. 8
The definition of essential service should not be too broad such as to create a blanket ban on the
right to strike for a certain category of employees who ordinarily cannot be construed as essential
employees. The need to strike a balance between the right to strike on one hand and maintenance
of the minimum service on the other is fully recognized. However, the object of such intervention
as measures should not be to completely stifle strike action but simply to provide stop gap
measures.
Interference by Public Authorities
As the law stands in its current form has been prone to abuse by public authorities particularly
section 107 (6). In tandem with the principle of fairness, the responsibility to declare strikes illegal
should not lie with the government as an interested party but should be the exclusive preserve of
an independent and impartial body. Justice must not only be done but it must manifestly appear to
be done without any subjective connotations which tend to taint objectivity. In section 107 (6), the
ILRA empowers a police office to arrest someone without needing a warrant, if they believed to
be on strike in an essential service or are likely to damage property. The use of military and
requisitioning orders to break a strike over occupational claims is only acceptable when these
actions aim at maintaining essential services in circumstances of the utmost gravity. The
government has since been requested by the ILO for many years to amend the law to remove this
restriction and bring it into line with the principles of freedom of association. However, the
government has been so adamant to amend this law as it works for them. Because of this draconia
in law, workers are subjected to intimidation and their trade union rights are widely flouted. For
example, in June 2010 during the health workers strike, armed police were sent to UTH to stop
nurses from carrying out strike within the hospital premises, disrupted the meeting organized in
the hospital by striking nurses and ordering them to abandon the meeting. The police arrested five
nurses and charged them with illegal assembly (ITUC, 2009; 2010). While workers and trade
unions have an obligation to respect the law of the country, the police intervention in the course
of strike should be limited to the maintenance of law and order. This intervention should be in
proportion to the threat to public order and government should give adequate instructions so as to
avoid the danger of excessive violence in trying to control demonstrations that might undermine
public order.
In the same manner, imposing sanctions such as a closure, liability in damages for any losses
incurred by the firm, facilitating class actions against the trade union, arrest or beating up trade
union leaders for leading a strike is a serious violation of the principles of freedom of association.
Similarly forcing striking workers back to work or resort to military force to quell a strike infringes
gravely upon the right to strike.
Need for Labour Reforms
One thing that is certain if the right to strike is to be enjoyed as a fundament labour right for
employees then, there is need to have labour reforms in our law governing this right to strike.
Measures should be taken to provide a clear comprehensive framework outlining the grounds
under which strikes and lockouts may be taken. Even though workers enjoy certain legal protection
against an employer’s retribution for strike activities, however, the right to strike is subject to long
series of procedural requirements so as it is almost impossible for workers to hold a legal strike. It

9. 9
is this lengthy procedural requirements provided for in the ILRA which should be reviewed. In
addition, there is need for clear legal procedures to be taken prior to strikes and lockouts,
protections, prohibitions and a clear dispute resolution procedure. More importantly, there is need
to remove certain provision that implicitly prohibits employees to go on strike. Most importantly,
section 78 (1) (b) that requires the conduct of a ballot before embarking on a strike or lockout
should be removed. Further, there is need to remove provisions requiring that a strike or lockout
should be terminated after 14 days or by a court order.
Conclusion
It is evident that there are a number of restrictions imposed on employees if they had to engage in
and/or during strike action. However, all stakeholders should tread carefully. They need to take
cognizance of both the restrictions imposed on, and the consequences applicable to non-
compliance with the various restrictions. Furthermore, misconduct perpetrated during strike action
does nothing to improve the relationship between the employer and the employees. On the
contrary, it could expose the perpetrators to disciplinary consequences and could result in a loss of
sympathy for the plight of workers who are themselves adhering to their legal obligations as part
of the strike action.
It has to be noted that strike avoidance is everyone’s responsibility. But to assert that strikes under
any circumstances are unlawful, dissolute, inequitable and unjustified is contrary to our law and
industrial jurisprudence. There is need for a paradigm shift to ensure that there are reforms in our
law so that the right to strike ceases to be a pipeline dream but a reality for the employees.
Undoubtedly, full compliance with the ILO requirements on the right to strike needs more
proactive action by the government and other social partners.
NOTES:
1. The conjoint reading of Articles 14, 21 and 112 (j) of the constitution of Zambia,
impliedly recognizes the right to strike in Zambia
2. The nurses and midwives strike in 2013 was declared illegal by the minister of Health Dr.
Joseph Kasonde describing it as illegal and unacceptable. He further said that it was sad
that the nurses were identifying themselves outside the confines of ethical and legal
practice for them to go on an illegal industrial action.
3. Judge Lord Wright comments in Crafter Harris Tweed v Veitch [1942] AC 435 at 463,
emphasized that “the right of workmen to strike is an essential element in the principle of
collective bargaining and a Canadian Judge, Cameron JA’s remarks in Re-trail Wholesale
Union and Govt of Saskatchewan (1985) 19 DLR (4th ) 609, at 639 “…the freedom to
bargain collectively, of which the right to withdraw services is integral, lies at the very
centre of the existence of an association of worker. To remove their freedom to withdraw
is to sterilisse their association”
4. These include the right not to be victimized, penalized, dismissed, etc. for exercising the
rights conferred on the employee under the Act, and Section 5(1)(e)–(h) in particular.
5. Such interference may take the form of providing financial or other assistance in any
form to any trade union or member/officer thereof or other assistance in any form to any

10. 10
trade union or any officer or member with the object of exercising any control over, or
influence in, the activities of such trade union
REFERENCE
Ben-Israel, R (1981). `Is the Right to Strike a Collective Human Right?' 11 Israel Yearbook of
Human Rights 195
Brassy, M et al. (2010). The New Labour Law. As cited in Strike Avoidance – How to Develop an
Effective Strike Avoidance Strategy – presented by John Brand at the 23rd Annual Labour
Law Conference – August 2010, accessed on 20.04.14. Available in URL form :<
http://www.lexisnexis.co.za/pdf/Workshop_3_3_Strike_Avoidance_presented_by_John_
Brand.pdf.
Chakwe, M. “Unionized Times workers go on Strike”. The Post Newspaper, Wednesday June 4,
2014.
Chamberlain, N W. and Schilling J M (1953). Social responsibility and Strikes, 1st Ed, Harper:
New York.
Chandra, S (ed) (2014). Socrates Edition-II Vol: I Issue March: ISSN 2347-2146
Davies, P and M Friedland, in Khan (1983). Freund’s Labour and the Law, 3rd Edition 292.
Gernigon, B., A. Odero, and H. Guido (1996). ILO Principles Concerning the Right to Strike
137(4) International Labour Review
Government Paper No. 1 (1995) Summary of the Recommendations of the Mwanakatwe
Constitutional Review Commission and Government Reaction to the Report, Government
Printer, Lusaka.
Hyman, R (1989). Strikes. 4th edition, London: Macmillan.
ILO (1947). Freedom of Association and Industrial Relations, 30th Session, Report VII,
ILO (1983). Freedom of Association and Collective Bargaining?, ILO Conference, 69th Session,
Report 111 (Part 4B) (Geneva)
ILO (1994). Freedom of Association and Collective Bargaining: Report of the Committee of
Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations, International Labour
Conference, 81st Session, Geneva
ILO (1996). Freedom of Association: Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of
Association Committee of the Governing Body of the ILO 4th edition Geneva.

11. 11
ILO (1998, 1999, 2000, 2003). Reports of the Committee of Experts on the Application of
Conventions and Recommendations.
ILO (2002). 327th Report of the Committee on Freedom of Association. GB.283/8, 283rd
Session, Geneva
ILO (2006). Freedom of Association: Digest of Decisions and Principles of the Freedom of
Association Committee Fifth (Revised) edition, Geneva
International Trade Union Confederation (2014).The Right to Strike and the ILO: The Legal
Foundations
Madhuku, L (1995). The Right to Strike in Zimbabwe, Zimbabwean Law Review
Malhotra. O.P (2001). The Law of Industrial Disputes Act, Vol. 1. Universal Law Publishing, 5th
Ed., Reprint,
Mucheche, C.H. (2013). A Practical Guide to Labour Law in Zimbabwe, 1st ed Harare: Molhurst
printers
Nkemdirim, B. A (1967). The White-Collar Worker Goes On Strike: A Study in Union-
Management Relations and the Development of Union Identification among White-
Collars
O’Higgins, P (1976). The Right to Strike-Some International Reflections, in J.R. Carby-Hall,
(ed.) Studies in Labour Law
Simone, R: The Right to Strike: a view on German Law from the perspective of the European
Social Charter
Nkonde, F. “UTH Nurses Strike over salaries”. The Post Newspaper, Friday October 4, 2013
Nyirenda, C & Moonga C. “Nurses Fired”. Times of Zambia, Wednesday December, 4 2013.
Okene, O.V.C (2007). The Status of the Right to Strike in Nigeria: A perspective From
International and Comparative Law; African Journal of International and Comparative
Law, Volume 15 (1): 29 Edinburgh University Press
Paul II, J (1981). Laborem Exercens, Available on
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-
ii_enc_14091981_laborem-exercens_en.html
Servais, J.M. ‘The ILO law and the freedom to strike’, accessed on 2/5/2014. Available in URL
form :<
http://www.law.utoronto.ca/documents/conferences2/StrikeSymposium09_Servais.pdf

12. 12
Shamenda. F. Ministerial Statement to the First Session of the Eleventh National Assembly on
(1) the Minimum Wage Situation in Zambia and (2) Sporadic Industrial Strikes in the
Country. Ministry of Labour, Youth and Sport (2011)
Wangwe, M & Nkonde F. “Nurses strike illegal”. Sunday Post October 6, 2013
Wyk, v. J and Heerden v.A.; South Africa: Getting The Balance Right: The Restrictions On
Protected Strikes In SA; Available in URL form :<.
http://www.mondaq.com/x/147156/Employee+Rights/Getting+The+Balance+Right+The
+Restrictions+On+Protected+Strikes+In+SA
Case Law
All India Bank Employees’ Association v. National Industrial Tribunal, AIR (1962) SC 171
Resident Doctors Association of Zambia and others v Attorney General (2003) Supreme Court
No.12 of 2003
Simon v. Hoover (1977) 1 ALL E.R. 777
T.K. Rangarajan v. Government of Tamilnadu and Others, [2003](6) SCALE 84
Tramp Shipping Corporation v. Greenwich Marine Incorp (1975) ICR 261, at 276.
Zambia Consolidated Copper Mines Limited v. Mutale SCZ Judgment No. 9 of 1996
(unreported),
LEGISLATION
Constitution of Zambia, Chapter 1 of the Laws of Zambia
Industrial and Labour relations Act, Chapter 269 of the Laws of Zambia
South African Constitution
Zimbabwe Labour Act, Chapter 28:01
The Industrial Disputes Act 1947 of India
Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union
Article 136 of the EC Treaty
The European Social Charter, 1961
INTERNATIONAL COVENANTS

13. 13
International Labour Organization (1948). Convention (No. 87) Concerning Freedom of
Association and Protection of the Right to Organize, 67 U.N.T.S. 18
International Labour Organization (1998). Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at
Work, ILO, 86th Session, Geneva, available online at http://www.ilo.org/declaration/
thedeclaration/textdeclaration/lang--en/index.htm.
International Labour Organization (1978). Labour Relations (Public Service) Convention, No.
151
International Labour Organization (1966). International Covenant of Economic, Social and
Cultural Rights Article
United Nations (1948). Universal Declaration of Human Rights, G.A. Res. 217 A (III), U.N. Doc.
A/810
United Nations (1966). International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, G.A. Res. 2200 A
(XXI), 21 U.N. GAOR, Supp. (no. 16) 52, U.N. Doc. A/6316
United Nations (1981). International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, G.A.
Res. 2200 A (XXI) 21 U.N. GAOR, Supp. (No. 16) 49, U.N. Doc. A/6316 (1966). ILO,
Collective Bargaining Convention, No. 154
BIOGRAPHICAL NOTE
NGOSA DENNIS holds a Master of Philosophy in Labour Law. He currently works with Zambia
Episcopal Conference as a researcher. His research areas are state theory, political analysis, Labour
law, strike movements, and philosophical research. [Email: demeriz@outlook.com]