Evaluating the Effectiveness of Labour Dispute Resolution Mechanisms in Zimbabwe's National Employment Councils Post the Labour Amendment Act No. 5 of 2015

Abstract

This study evaluated the effectiveness of dispute resolution mechanisms in Zimbabwe’s National Employment Councils (NECs) following the promulgation of the Labour Amendment Act Number 5 of 2015. Effectiveness was assessed using the timeliness of dispute resolution, the fairness of outcomes, the accessibility of the mechanisms, the enforceability of decisions, and stakeholder satisfaction. The amendment had aimed to harmonise national labour laws with the Constitution of Zimbabwe and promote fair labour practices. Nonetheless, its implementation led to procedural complexities, delays, and concerns about impartiality in the justice delivery system, particularly regarding the neutrality of Designated Agents (DAs). The study aimed to achieve the following: (i) to evaluate the effectiveness and fairness of NEC dispute resolution processes under the amended legal framework; (ii) to examine stakeholder perceptions of neutrality, accessibility, and enforcement within the NEC system; and (iii) to develop a practical, justice-oriented model for improving labour dispute resolution in Zimbabwe. It adopted a qualitative approach grounded in a dual case study design focusing on the NECs for the Welfare and Educational Institutions and the Energy Sector. A purposive sample of 39 respondents, drawn from employers’ associations, the Employers’ Confederation of Zimbabwe (EMCOZ), trade unions, the Ministry of Public Service, Labour and Social Welfare (MPSL&SW), Designated Agents, the Labour Court, the Zimbabwe Federation of Trade Unions (ZFTU), the Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions (ZCTU) and legal practitioners, participated in face-to-face interviews, alongside an extensive review of relevant literature and secondary data. Rawls’ theory of justice and the pluralist labour theory provided the theoretical framework, offering a lens through which the principles of fairness, impartiality, and equity in dispute resolution amid competing interests were evaluated. Data were thematically analysed using NVivo 13 software. The findings revealed systemic challenges in the aftermath of the amendment, including procedural inefficiency, high litigation costs, weak enforcement mechanisms, and limited stakeholder collaboration. These weaknesses notably undermined stakeholder confidence and the attainment of social justice within industrial relations. The study developed a conceptual model in response, advocating for a fair, transparent, and collaborative dispute resolution system that integrates technology, strengthens institutional capacity, and improves accountability among NEC actors. It contributes to the body of knowledge by empirically operationalising Rawlsian justice and the pluralist labour theory within Zimbabwe’s labour dispute resolution framework, demonstrating how principles of fairness and equity can be translated into measurable indicators of effectiveness, and by proposing a pragmatic, evidence-based model for reforming dispute resolution processes in NECs. The model integrates theoretical insights with practical reforms, providing policymakers and practitioners with a framework to enhance fairness, efficiency, and social justice in Zimbabwe’s industrial relations landscape and beyond.