LABOUR LAW LECTURE notes (Prof.

Barya)

TRADE UNIONISM AND TRADE UNION LAW

Trade Unions as a collective organization of workers are responsible for the content of labour
law, generally. However, this collective organization of workers in trade unions has not always
been accepted by the state and employers. Instead, the history of trade unions and trade union
law shows that the state and employers were forced to recognize this right only after a series of
struggles.

Under the English common law, the main concept in labour law is the individual contract of
employment, i.e. between an employer and an employee. The common law position is and has
always been that there is an individual contract of employment which is voluntary and entered
into upon such agreeable terms subject only to a few limitations imposed by the general law. It is
also assumed that this agreement is entered into after a bargain. In reality, however, this is an
illusion of freedom of contract that is a legacy of capitalism whose dominant ideology in the 19th
Century was ‘laissez-faire.’ However, before the 19th Century and particularly before the
industrial revolution, this freedom of contract was not necessarily recognized.

Employer-employee relations then called master-servant relations was regulated by the state and
also by the courts. There was no freedom of contract as such. In particular, the wage fixing
process and other terms were in the hands of the state either through the judiciary or legislation,
and for this reason laws were passed barring collective bargaining (Ordinance of Labourers
1349).

This ordinance put in place a system of workers or employers to alter wages or conditions of
work. And from 1360 onwards, various laws were passed prohibiting the same either generally
or in specific trades. As a result of this attitude, many anti combination and anti trade union laws
were made. These laws prohibiting/criminalizing collective organization of the workers were in
place till mid-19th Century.

One of such laws was made in 1548 and was known as the Bill of Conspiracies, Victuallers
and Craftsmen. This law provided that it was illegal “if workmen do conspire, convenant or
promise together that they shall not make or do their works but at a certain price or rate or shall
not enterprise or take upon themselves not to finish what another has begun or shall not work
but at certain hours and times.”

Secondly, courts had laid it down as law that union organization was a common law crime
known as conspiracy. In other words, even without legislation, courts made law. For example, in
R v Mauber 1796, the judge held that, “as in the days of journeymen, conspiring to raise their
wages was illegal. Each may insist on raising his wages if he can, but if several meet for the
same purpose it is illegal and the parties may be indicted for a conspiracy.”

Thirdly, as a result of the 1789 French Revolution, many governments in Europe including the
United Kingdom feared organization of workers and also feared the Jacobin Revolution.

Go forth and set the world on fire….St. Ignatius of Loyola…..AMDG

Therefore, to counter this fear, Anti Combination Acts were passed in 1799 and specifically the
Combination of Workmen Act 1800. This Act rendered criminal all agreements for advancing
altering of hours or quantity of work or preventing workmen from hiring themselves or
attempting to induce themselves to leave work. Equally under this law, agreements among
employers on the same issues were illegal. Finally, under this Act, all attendance acts or
persuasion to attend meetings for this purpose or any combinations of this nature were illegal. In
short, by the beginning of the 19th Century, any collective organization of workers or even
employers was illegal. It was an offence.

This situation could only obtain as long as workers were still weak or not organized. As a result
of various forms of opposition to this legal position, a select committee on artisans and
machinery was set up in 1824 to deal with existing grievances. This committee recommended
that employees and employers were free to organize and that laws barring freedom of contract
and those making these combinations criminal conspiracies were to be annulled. As a result, the
Combinations (Repeal) Act 1824 was passed.

This Act expressly removed all criminal liability for conspiracy whether under common law or
statute for combining to agitate for change in the wages, hours or conditions of work, to regulate
the mode of carrying out any trade, business or manufacture, or to induce persons to leave or
refuse to turn up for work. However, this Act did not survive for long. As a result of this law,
there were a number of violent strikes by a number of workers and by the end of the next year;
this law was amended to the Combinations Laws Repeal Act (Amendment) Act 1825. This
Act did not expressly legalize strikes, lockouts or picketing. In addition, this Act penalized
specific acts such as violence, threats and intimidation. It also created new offences, for example,
molestation and obstruction, which were hitherto not known to labour disputes. These terms
were vague and the 19th Century British judges used them to criminalize workers’ struggles
which were intended to better their working conditions. In this respect, the common law offence
of conspiracy was widened to include threats, molestation and obstruction. For instance, one
judge in the case of Walsby v Anley (1861) threatened that a lawful strike to take place was a
criminal offence (molestation) under the 1825 Act.

In R v Duffield (1851), the judge held that it was unlawful for persons “to combine to induce
others even if by peaceful persuasion to leave their employment with the object of forcing their
employers to improve their working conditions. Such combination was criminal obstruction or
molestation of the employer not only under the 1825 Act but also at common law.”

These judicial decisions were detested by workers who organized for their reversal by legislation
and in 1859, the Molestation of Workmen Act was passed. This Act made peaceful picketing
legal by providing that no person would be deemed guilty of molestation or obstruction under the
1825 Act by reason merely of agreeing to fix wages with others for hours of work or by
endeavoring in a peaceful and reasonable manner to persuade others to cease or abstain from
work for that purpose. In spite of this Act, the judges ensured that the common law doctrines of
conspiracy and restraint of trade were maintained. This law did not fundamentally change

Go forth and set the world on fire….St. Ignatius of Loyola…..AMDG

industrial relations or solve the disputes arising therefrom. The judges could use other
interpretations of common law constraining the organization of workers; and one of the major
areas of restraining the organization of workers was the doctrine of restraint of trade.

RESTRAINT OF TRADE

Trade Unions as combinations or organisations imposing restraint of trade which courts

considered unreasonable were taken to be unlawful bodies to whose agreements and trusts the
law could give no protection. First of all, the membership of unions and the contracts they
entered into, for instance, to pay contributions, obtain benefits, etc. were not protected by the
law; but above all, their funds were not protected under criminal law either. This came about in
the case of Hornby v Close (1867). In this case, a trade union in order to obtain the right to take
proceedings for the embezzlement or theft of funds had to first get registered under the Friendly
Societies Act (1855). Here the Union attempted to prosecute one of its branch treasurers. Court
objected and held that as the Union was in unlawful restraint of trade it was therefore not a
society established “for any purpose which is not illegal” within the meaning of the 1855 Act.
The prosecution was therefore dismissed.

Apart from the above disability which was a common law illegality, Unions suffered from the
fact that they were voluntary associations with no corporate personality apart from that of
individual members. A Union therefore could not hold property. Its property was joint property
of all its members and the common law position is that a co-owner cannot be guilty of stealing
joint property. So, individually, Union members could not be prosecuted for illegally handling
Union property. Such anomaly was however removed by the enactment of the Larceny and
Embezzlement Act 1868 and the Trade Union Funds Protection Act 1868. The importance of
the latter Act was that a society or organization would not lose the benefits of the 1855 Friendly
Societies Act to punish members for frauds merely because it had rules that were in restraint of
trade.

Between 1825 and 1871/75 decisions made by court were generally hostile to the organization of
labor. However, there were a number of political and social developments that would lead to a
change later. Workers together with political reformists struggled to change the situation and
politically there was a move from liberal ideas to more radical ideas and the times also witnessed
the birth of Marxism in the middle of the 19th Century. It is in the 19th Century that different
ideologies of socialism were advanced. Some were reformist, others were radical.

Reformism (advocated for a few specific changes) vs Revolution (advocated for an overhaul of
the entire system).

Through the pressure of trade unions, in 1868 a liberal majority government was elected mainly
as a result of extending the franchise workers (i.e. the right to vote). A year before (1867) a
Royal Commission on Trade Unions had been appointed to look at the possibilities of reforming

Go forth and set the world on fire….St. Ignatius of Loyola…..AMDG

the law relating to workers’ rights to organize. The majority report was hostile to trade unions.
But there was a favorable minority report. It is the minority report that was accepted by the
government. The minority report recommended the legal position of trade unions with rights and
powers. From these recommendations the Trade Unions Act 1871 was enacted and this Act is
historically seen as the initial charter for workers’ organizational rights.

THE TRADE UNIONS ACT 1871

This Act partially legalized trade unions, instituted a system of voluntary registration and also
conferred upon registered trade unions a special legal status with rights, powers and immunities.
However, it also imposed certain obligations upon them

Major changes introduced by the Act.

1. Trade unions were refined as combinations of workmen or employers but also covered
other organizations that impose restrictive conditions of trade or business, for instance,
trade associations. The assumption was still that such bodies were in unlawful restraint of
trade at common law.
2. The Act stipulated that members of the trade union would not be liable of criminal
conspiracy because its purposes were in unlawful restraint of trade.
3. Agreements and trusts of a trade union would no longer be void or voidable for being in
restraint of trade, and therefore they would be legal and binding.
4. Although these unions obtained civil legality, their rights and capacity were curtailed in a
specific way. The Act provided that no court would entertain legal proceedings or
directly enforcing or recovering damages for breach of certain intra union agreements
relating to subscriptions, penalties and benefits, or those between one union and another
(inter union). The lawmakers did this for the purpose of stopping court from interfering in
union activities. The other reason was that there was still hangover of not being interested
in helping trade unions develop.
5. The legalization of trade unions did not give them positive rights as such. Instead the
legal status of the unions was given in a negative form by way of immunities from judge
made doctrines of the common law. Because of this, later on the judges would change the
common law doctrines in order to circumvent the Act. As far as this was concerned, the
interest was to establish sound unions with proper written constitutions and regularly
audited accounts. In order to encourage registration, some advantages were granted for
registered unions but mainly the power to acquire and own land and property and to bring
or defend legal proceedings in the names of trustees.

This Act did not alter some criminal aspects of trade unions. Instead a separate Act was enacted
to repeal the 1825 and 1859 Acts and this was the Criminal Amendment Act of 1871. This Act
made it an offence for any person to use violence, threats, intimidation, molestation, or
obstruction with a view of coercing an employer or workman to act in a specific way. Threats
and intimidation were narrowed down and a mere threat to strike was no longer a defence. The

Go forth and set the world on fire….St. Ignatius of Loyola…..AMDG

terms molestation and obstruction were specifically defined. These two words were defined to
mean, the persistent following of a person, hiding his tools, clothes or other property, watching
or dissenting, or following him into or through a street or ward in a disorderly manner with two
or more persons.

In addition, in 1876, the Trade Union Act (Amendment) Act made some changes providing that
all bodies having trade union objects were not necessarily in unlawful restraint of trade and that
the statutory definition of a trade union included combinations that were lawful at common law.
The 1871 Amendment specified that no person would be liable to punishment for doing or
conspiring to do any act on the ground that it restrained or tended to restrain the free course of
trade. In spite of this provision, in 1872 in R v Bunn the judge held as follows, “the 1871 Act
did not abrogate the common law under which he considered it an improper molestation to do
any act with an improper intent amounting to an unjustifiable annoyance and interference in the
employer’s business such as would be likely to have a deterrent effect according to employers of
ordinary nerve.” Consequently, the judge held that a threat by London gas workers to
strike……. unless the employer discharged for union activity was a criminal conspiracy at
common law to force employers to run their business contrary to their will. The meaning of this
decision was that a strike was no longer a criminal conspiracy in restraint of trade, but a worker
involved in it could be indicted for a conspiracy to coerce.

Both the workers and trade unions were enraged by this revival of judicial activism on
conspiracy and demanded a change in the law. The Royal Commission on Labor Laws was put
in place to consider the matter concerning labor laws. This gave birth to The Conspiracy and
Protection of Property Act of 1875. It repealed the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1871. This
Act was a general Act but it dealt with trade and labor disputes. It reversed the decision in R v
Bunn by removing the application of the doctrine of criminal conspiracy to acts done ‘in
contemplation or furtherance of trade dispute. Such an act done in contemplation was no longer
criminal unless the act itself when done by one person…… Equally, breaches of contracts of
employment as criminal offences were removed but other breaches were introduced;

1. Where a breach of the employment contract is by persons employed in a public supply of

water and where loss of supply was likely to result.
2. Where the breach was likely to invoke serious injury….

Under this Act, the terms threats, molestation and obstruction were removed. But instead they
were reenacted as prohibitions against violence, intimidation, persistent or disorderly following,
hiding goods, and watching and besetting. This position was endorsed or followed in the case of
Gibson v Lawson, and Allan v T 1891. In these cases, the C.J held as follows, “to tell an
employer that he employs workmen of a certain sort, the workmen of another sort within his
employ will be told to leave, and to tell the men when the employer will not give way ‘to leave
their work, use no violence, use no immoderate language, but quietly cease to work and go
home’ is certainly not in relation within any reasonable construction of the statute.”

Go forth and set the world on fire….St. Ignatius of Loyola…..AMDG

A few years later, in Lyonns and Sons v W 1899, peaceful picketing which the C.J had referred
to in Gibson case was declared an unlawful common law nuisance and a statutory watching and
besetting. The judges also reasoned that the compulsion need not be aimed at the same person as
the one beset. In this particular case, the pickets were trying to persuade other workers not to
work at the works of both Lyonns and the sub manufacturer. The judge argued that this
persuasion by the pickets went beyond merely communicating information and Lord Justice
Lindley, M.R declared that this was an unlawful watching and besetting because, “such conduct
seriously interferes with the ordinary comfort of human existence and ordinary enjoyment of the
house beset, and such conduct would support an action for a nuisance at common law.”

CIVIL LIABILITY OF THE UNIONS

The purpose of the 1875 Act had been to exclude the law of conspiracy from trade disputes.
However, this purpose was eventually defeated by the judicial development or creation of the
tort of conspiracy distinct from conspiracy as a crime. This doctrine was enunciated in the case
of Quinn v Leathem 1901 by no less than the House of Lords. In this case, the plaintiff
employed non union men. The defendants told the plaintiff and one of his best customers, a
butcher, that unless he dismissed these men from their jobs there would be a strike at his place
and his customer’s place. As a result he lost his customer and then he sued for conspiracy
alleging a combination to injure. It was held as follows;

1. The officers of the trade union were liable in damages for combining to injure the butcher
by threatening to withdraw labour from one of his customers unless the …… ceased to
deal with him. The defendants purpose was to obtain the dismissal of non union men
employed by the butcher and they both found that the defendants’ motive was to injure
the butcher and not to defend their own legitimate interests.
2. Although no unlawful act had been committed, by any of the defendants individually the
combination to injure was an unlawful conspiracy entitling the plaintiff to recover
damages for the loss he had suffered.
3. The 1875 Act afforded no protection since it referred only to criminal conspiracy

In the same year, the courts dealt another blow to the trade unions in the case of Taff Vale Co. v
Amalgamated. In this case, the railway company sought damages and an injunction in respect of
tortious acts allegedly committed by the respondent union and its officers or leaders. For the
union it was argued that it could not be sued in its own name for damages or for the injunction.
The court of appeal agreed with this position and held that the union could not be sued in its own
name because the legislature had not made it a legal entity in the 1875 Act. However, on appeal,
the House of Lords held as follows;

1. A registered union though neither a corporation nor an individual nor a partnership was
constituted by the 1871 Act as a legal entity possessing sufficient attributes of a corporate
personality to enable it to be sued in its own name for the torts of its servant or agents.

Go forth and set the world on fire….St. Ignatius of Loyola…..AMDG

 Court reversed the ruling of the Court of Appeal. This made the trade unions liable for
torts of its servants or agents.
2. The House of Lords also expressed an opinion that any trade union registered or
unregistered could be sued in a representative action for torts committed by its agents.

This particular decision was rejected by the unions and their workers, and there were numerous
protests against the decision. Consequently, a royal commission on trade disputes and trade
combinations was set up in 1903, and it made some recommendations which were also rejected
by the unions. Indeed workers and trade unions refused to appear before the commission because
they rejected its composition. However, in February 1906, there was a new government (liberal
government). This government was sympathetic to workers and trade unions and therefore put in
place a new law i.e. The Trade Disputes Act 1906. The general aim of this Act was to restate the
law as it had been intended and understood in 1875. This Act is very important in trade union
legal history because it clearly reverses all the major judicial decisions adverse to the trade
unions between 1875-1901. The major provisions of the Act were as follows;

1. As far as trade disputes were concerned, the Act reversed the decisions in Quinn v
Leather and in Lyonns v Wilkins. It provided that for acts done ‘in contemplation or
furtherance of a trade dispute’ the risk of civil conspiracy was removed. If an act was not
unlawful, mere combination could not make it so. Section 1 read as follows;
“An act done in pursuance of an agreement or combination by two or more
persons shall, if done in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute, not be
actionable unless the act if done without any such agreement could be
actionable.”
2. Peaceful picketing is declared lawful in clear terms including persuasion. S.2(1). This is
in our Trade Disputes Act. The section stated;
“It shall be lawful for one or more persons acting on their own behalf or on behalf
of the trade union or an individual employer or firm, in contemplation or
furtherance of a trade dispute, at any part or near a house or place where the
person resides or works or carries on business or happens to be, if they so attend
merely for the purpose of peacefully obtaining or communicating information or
peacefully persuading any person to work or abstaining from working.”
3. The Act conferred immunity from tortious liability for inducing a breach of contract of
employment in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute but personal liability of
individually breaking a contract is not allowed. This is reproduced in our Labour Unions
Act. Section 3 of the Act stated;
“An act done by a person in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute shall
not be actionable only on the ground that it induces some other person to break
the contract of employment or that it is an interference with the trade, business or
employment of some other person or with the right of some other person to
dispose of some capital or labour as he wills.”

Go forth and set the world on fire….St. Ignatius of Loyola…..AMDG

 4. The Taff Vale decision was also reversed and the immunity if trade unions funds was
restored with respect to torts committed in trade disputes but also against any other
liability in torts. S.4(1) also reproduced in our Labour Unions Act
“An action against a trade union whether of workmen or master or against any members
or officials thereof on behalf of themselves and other members of the trade union in
respect of any tortious act alleged to have committed by or on behalf of the trade union
shall not be entertained by any court.” This immunity against torts is threefold i.e. the
trade union, its officials or leaders, and also the members of the union. In addition S.4(2)
provided that ‘nothing in this section shall affect the liability of trustees of a trade union
to be sued in the events provided by the Trade Unions Act of 1871 (S.9) except in respect
of any tortious act committed by or on behalf of the union in contemplation or
furtherance of the dispute.’
5. Finally, the Act defined the term trade dispute in such a way that the statutory protection
given applies to the original dispute as well as sympathetic or secondary action. (we don’t
have this in our law)

TRADE UNION POLITICAL ACTIVITY AND REFORMATION OF THE LABOUR

PARTY.

From the mid-19th Century, trade unions in the U.K had seen it necessary to pursue political
activity specifically by sponsoring parliamentary candidates and giving them financial support.
In 1868 the British Trade Union Congress set up a parliamentary committee to ensure a return to
parliament of trade union members. By 1900, the TUC joined other workers organisations to
form the Labour Consultative Committee of 1900 which committee was renamed the Labour
Party in 1906 and returned 29 members of parliament. In order to facilitate political activity
made special levies upon their members and established political funds in the trade union. Some
of the trade unions were registered by the Registrar who agreed that it was legitimate for a trade
union to pursue political activities in order to achieve its objectives. This view was accepted in
the case of Steele v Southways Miners Federation 1907 and it was held by the High Court as
follows;

1. The provision of a fund of parliamentary representation was within the scope of a trade
union and that if the majority members supported it, the court would not restrain them.
2. The statutory definition of a trade union was not exhaustive and that even if it was
exhausitive, parliamentary representation would fall within it. the Judge, Justice Darline,
J held as follows;
“it seems to me that one of the ways of regulating commissions between workmen and
masters or workmen and workmen or masters and masters is to get laws passed by
parliament for their regulation, and that one of the first steps towards getting these laws
passed would be to send a representative to parliament to promote a bill for that purpose.

However, in the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants v Osborne 1910, the above
decision was overturned. In this case, the trade union was registered under the 1871 Act. In one

Go forth and set the world on fire….St. Ignatius of Loyola…..AMDG

of its rules it gave power to get contributions from members for the purpose of securing
parliamentary representation. The respondent, Osborne, who was a member, sought a declaration
that this rule was ultra vires and void. The House of Lords held as follows;

1. That the objects of a trade union were confined to those contemplated by the Trade
Union Acts and that there was nothing in the definition of a trade union in the
different Acts from which it could be inferred. The trade unions were intended to
have the power of collecting and administering funds for political purposes.
2. A rule of a registered trade union purporting to confer such a power for the purpose of
parliamentary representation was ultra vires, null and void.

This judgment was followed by major applications for injunctions against trade unions. As a
result of this decision the existing industrial unrest was multiplied by many times and there was a
multitude of strikes. Agitation and opposition to the Osborne decision continued until 1913 when
the Trade Unions Act 1913 was passed. This Act reverses the Osborne decision. It enabled
unions to pursue political objectives as long as the union constitution allowed it. In other words,
it was the members to determine the objectives of the union including political objectives, but
not legislation of courts. Under this Act, a fund intended for political objectives was voluntary. A
union member would opt out of it.

THE COLONIAL TRADE UNION LAWS AND TRADE UNIONISM

Prior to the Second World War, there was hardly any consistent form of Worker’s organisations.
Initially the population was not interested in wage labour and had to be forced to work either
directly or indirectly.

There were two forms of labour at the beginning of colonialism; (i) the forced labour system
known as “Kasanvu” and this was run between 1909 and 1922. (ii) public service labour which
was unpaid labour (bulungi bwansi). However, Kasanvu was paid forced labour because adult
men had to pay taxes and in order to pay taxes they had to work because of the obligations of
taxation. In 1922 however, Kasanvu was abolished and a labour department was established in
order to supervise the recruitment of migrant labour. Because of abolition of Kasanvu, there was
a labour shortage hence the need for migrant labour.

Labour was required by the colonial state mainly for public works by plantation owners and
Christian missions.

Migrant workers were recruited from Northern and Western Uganda and from outside Rwanda
and Burundi. This labour was needed mainly in Buganda for the colonial state, for the
missionaries and for Baganda Chiefs and land lords.

In Buganda, labour was mainly for cotton and coffee plantations for production and the character
of the people living in Buganda even today emerge from the colonial age.

Go forth and set the world on fire….St. Ignatius of Loyola…..AMDG

Because labour was migrant, usually short term and casual, it could hardly organize trade unions.
However, there were other forms of organization. Most of these organisations were based in
Buganda and were organisations of either peasants (bakopi) or the clan heads (bataka). The
concern of the peasants was land its expropriation by the British. As a result both the clan heads
and the peasants were opposed to the 1900 Buganda Agreement that shared out land between the
colonial government and the Kabaka/Chiefs.

However, colonial African civil servants were the first to get organized in 1922 under Uganda
African Civil Servants Association (UACSA). This association championed the interests of
African clerks and professionals trained at Makerere College, mainly trading as medical,
veterinary, agricultural and engineering assistants.

Therefore, their main grievance was racial discrimination in civil service terms and conditions of
work. This group therefore was a bit elitist and did not form trade unions.

The first trade union is to be registered in Uganda was of young taxi drivers in Kampala and was
known as the Uganda African Motor Drivers Association (UAMDA). The founders were James
Kivu and Ignatius Musaazi.

This union was formed I 1938 and registered in 1939 under Trade Union Ordinance No. 18 of
1937. This was the first trade union law in Uganda. This ordinance was promulgated not
because there was a demand for it but because of developments elsewhere in the British colonies.
This ordinance was passed because of strikes and disturbances in the Carribean territories.

The colonial office sanctioned the strengthening of labour departments and the introduction of
trade union legislation. As a result of strikes in Kenya, the colonial government introduced a
trade union ordinance and one object of the Bill was to prevent all irresponsible agitators from
causing trouble among labour in the colony.

The ordinance in Uganda was therefore enacted as a preventative measure. Two types of
agitators were targeted. (i) nationalists and (2) socialist (communists).

1937 TRADE UNION ORDINANCE NO. 18 of 1937

This ordinance was a simple ordinance intended to regulate colonial trade unions and to ensure
that they were not politically directed.

Major provisions.

 Compulsory registration was the cornerstone of the ordinance.

 A registrar of trade unions was appointed.
 The requirements for registration were simple and formal including the following.

Go forth and set the world on fire….St. Ignatius of Loyola…..AMDG

  The minimum of 7 members and disclosure of the source of union funds, the name and
office of the union, objects, subscription rates, purposes for union funds, the making and
altering of rules, appointment of officers and their removal and a treasurer’s duties.
 A requirement to keep proper and periodically audited accounts.
 The right of union members to inspect its books.
 If these matters were provided for and the registrar was satisfied that the objectives of the
union were not lawful, he was required to register the union.

On the other hand, the registrar could cancel registration of the union on four grounds. (i) at the
request of the union (ii) if the registration was obtained by fraud or mistake and (iii) if it violated
any provision of the ordinance or rules made thereunder (iv) if it had ceased to exist.

Looking at the above, there was no serious danger that a union would be de registered and these
powers were never invoked.

There were requirements of proper accounting. Every union had to provide annual returns, i.e a
statement of accounts, changes in its rules and changes of officers and every union treasurer had
to give orderly accounts.

It is important to note that following the 1871 Trade Unions Act of the UK, it was provided that
union restraint of trade would not be deemed criminal conspiracy, nor would it be unlawful “so
as to render void or voidable any agreement on trust.”

Between 1939 and 1943, some amendments were made to this ordinance as a result of
instructions from the colonial office. These happened during World War 2. The 1941 amendment
(i) legalized peaceful picketing (ii) granted trade unions immunity form tortious actions for acts
committed by or on behalf of the union, “in contemplation or furtherance of trade dispute.”

In 1943, the Trade Unions and Trade Disputes Ordinance No. 9 of 1943 consolidated the law and
added 3 new provisions. (i) in S.22(1) both civil and criminal conspiracy would not be
maintainable regarding a combination or agreement in contemplation or furtherance of a trade
dispute. This followed the 1875 Act.

Under S.23, this amendment removed liability for interference with business, trade and
employment as long as the act in question was also in contemplation or furtherance of a trade
dispute.

Finally a right of appeal to the High court against a refusal of registration. S. 12(3). This law had
no impact between 1937 and 1943 because there were no trade unions.

Thus until 1943, this trade union legislation was not of much practical significance. Only one
trade union existed i.e UAMDA and although Kenyan trade unions attempted to organize
workers in Uganda, they were not successful, where as they were actually successful in
Tanganyika.

Go forth and set the world on fire….St. Ignatius of Loyola…..AMDG

THE TRADE UNIONS ORDINANCE NO. 10 OF 1952

This ordinance was a very significant law because it was very comprehensive and most of the
provisions in the current can be traced from it. This ordinance was promulgated in the context of;

1. The new colonial policy of import substitution under which the colonial government had
decided to set up industries in Uganda instead of importing all manufactured goods. This
was also underscored by the construction of Owen Falls Dam for electricity and setting
up of Uganda Development Corporation in 1954. It was UDC that was responsible for the
development of industries in Uganda between 1952 and 1972.
2. The end of World War II meant that the nationalist movement for independence was now
more developed. As a result, the role of workers in society was increased, mainly because
the new industries provided stable and permanent work. World War II also had
experienced freedom of workers elsewhere and therefore were able to demand the same
freedoms. The more immediate reason that changed the mind of the colonial state
towards workers was the 1945 general strike. This general strike was led by UAMDA. It
also included domestic workers. As a result of this strike, the colonial state enacted
legislation n that was anti workers. Four laws were passed;
1. The Employment Ordinance No 13 of 1946 repealing the Masters and Servants
Ordinance
2. The Workmens Compensation Ordinance 1946
3. The Trade Disputes Arbitration
4. The Trade Unons Ordinance No. 10 of
This ordinance was the first and most comprehensive trade union ordinance. The
purposes of this ordinance were mainly the following;

1. To provide basic trade union rights and freedom of association for workers.
2. To ensure state control of the character and development of trade unions.
3. To ensure accountability by leaders of trade unions.
On freedom of association, the ordinance followed the provisions of ILO Convention No.
98 namely; The Right to Organize and Collective Bargaining Convention 1949. In
addition, rights, immunities and privileges were also granted in spite of injections from
employers. In order to control the movement of unions, four forms of organization were
provided for;

1. The Employees Association. These would be six or more members under one
employer.
2. The Employees Organization. Six to twenty employees under different employers in
the same industry would form this.
These two were not important organizationally. They were mere associations

3. The Probationary Trade Union. This would exist for between three to twelve months
subject to the Registrars discretion to refuse or register the union fully.
4. The Registered Trade Union. This had full rights, powers, immunities and privileges.

Go forth and set the world on fire….St. Ignatius of Loyola…..AMDG

 As of 1945, only one trade union still existed i.e. the UAMDA. There were attempts to
form other trade unions as a result of a growth of the number of workers mainly in Jinja,
the plantations and to some extent in Kampala.

The British were aware that following the end of World War II, the emergency of USA
and also the emergence of the Eastern Socialist bloc i.e. USSR, Eastern Europe, China,
North Vietnam and North Korea. They were also aware that the colonized countries
would seek help from the socialist bloc and the sought to block any alliance between the
nationalist politicians and the socialist bloc or the East. It is in the 1950s that the cold war
was born between the East and West Europe. The colonial state therefore preferred the
development of non radical and non political trade unions. They preferred trade unions
with an economistic ideology, not interested in politics. The colonial state therefore used
the assistance of three organisations;

1. The British Trade Union Congress TUC

2. The International Confederation of Free Trade Unions ICFTU
3. The African American Labour Center AALC were used by the colonial state to create
a non political labour force. By having trade unions as apolitical and economistic
organisations, they sought to separate them from two forces
1. The Nationalist political parties pursuing independence.
2. Socialism or communism from the eastern bloc i.e. USSR, Eastern Europe and
China.
As a result of colonial policy, the British TUC and ICFTU were allowed to mentor Ugandas
trade unions in order to ensure that they were apolitical and not radical. In 1956, the first trade
union centre in Uganda, the Uganda Trade Union Congress UTUC, was formed with the
assistance of the Kenyan trade unionist Tom Mboya. The UTUC was also heavily influenced by
the ICFTU which in 1958 set up the ICFTU African Labour College in Kampala.

Before independence there was only one national centre UTUC. However, the emergence of
different political parties in Uganda forced trade unions to accept some political positions and
reject others. When UPC was formed in March 1960, a section of it took a keen interest in the
trade union movement. By 1961 there was a split in UTUC with the formation of Uganda
Federation of Labour (UFL)======= READ prof Barya working paper no 17.

UFL became a rival of UTUC. UFL was more militant and allied itself with the UPC Youth
League under the leadership of John Kakonge who was then Secretary General of UPC. This
alliance encouraged militant and political unionism.--------- Read Uganda, a Crisis of
Confidence by Kirunda Kivejinja.

This alliance was very radical and there were many strikes and riots in 1964. This radicalism
would lead the government to enact restrictive legislation regulating workers, and these were to
include;

1. The Public Service…Negotiating Machinery…Act 1963

Go forth and set the world on fire….St. Ignatius of Loyola…..AMDG

 2. The Trade Unions Act 1965
3. The Trade Disputes…Arbitration and Settlement Act 1964
The overall effect of these three pieces of legislation was;

1. To restrict government employees from joining trade unions except junior employees.
2. To destroy collective bargaining rights of the majority of government employees.
3. To remove the right to strike in government essential services.
4. To make it difficult to have a lawful strike.
By 1964, UFL had collapsed and was replaced by FUTU. Before the collapse of UFL, it had
allied itself with the Accra based AATUF ( All AFRica Trade Union Federation under the
patronage of Kwame Nkrumah. When FUTU was formed it tried to take over the ideological
mantle of UFL. But FUTU leadership was generally opportunistic and within the Ugandan
context, there were these coalisiton, i.e FUTU with AAFTU, and UTUC with ICFTU. This is
what is referred to as the beginning of cold war trade unionism. FUTU opposed affiliation to
ICFTU.

In reality, FUTU had no serious membership and eventually it allowed itself to be patronized by
the UPC Secretary General, Grace Ibingira and by the Minister of Labour, George Magezi. Both
The government signed a wage increase agreement for E.R Kibuukas Union…..Uganda Public
Employees Union. This union was favored by the government. The Minister of Labour, Magezi
registered a new union in the plantation sector when another union already existed. However, the
fortunes of FUTU were tied up with the fortunes of their patrons i.e Ibingira and Magezi. During
the 1966 crisis, when UPC and KY fell out, and the right wing ministers in UPC were arrested,
FUTU found itself naked.

THE UGANDA LABOUR CONGRESS (ULC) 1966-1968

The Obote government, following the 1966 crisis, forced UTUC and FUTU to merge, following
the arrests of both Magezi and Ibingira. The merger took place in 1966 and the two were
renamed the Uganda Labour Congress. However, the leadership wrangles between the two
continued even after the merger, and one of the factions led by E.R Kibuuka purported to
overthrow the leadership of ULC and to abrogate the ULC constitution. Kibuuka claimed to be
supporting the government policy of non-alignment opposed to the ICFTU and also promised not
to send any trade union students to the ICFTU College in Kampala until it was taken out of
ICFTU hands. Because of these events, the UPC Obote I government took advantage of the
situation, suspended ULC, took over its assets, and closed the ICFTU Africa Labour College in
Kampala. A commission of inquiry was set up into the affairs of ULC. It was a one man
commission headed by Godfrey Lukonga Binaisa. Therefore, between 1968-1974, there was no
trade union centre until Amin established NOTU.

However, between 1968-71, there were major political developments, otherwise known as ‘the
move to the left’ strategy of 1968-1971. This strategy was a political re orientation of politics in
Uganda intended to create a socialist society. In this strategy, UPC and Obote (UPC) allied with

Go forth and set the world on fire….St. Ignatius of Loyola…..AMDG

Nyerere (TANU) and Kaunda (UNIP). Within Eastern Africa and in the Cold War, these were
parties of the left. However Barya in his Thesis Law, State and Working Class Organisation
in Uganda argues “that the policy was an attempt by a nascent bureaucratic (or state)
bourgeoisie to Consolidate itself and that law was used to incorporate the trade unions,
institutionally, and the leadership in particular to the new state capitalist institutions under the
guise of "socialism".”

Between 1968-1971 the strategy of the government changed from basing labour policy and
legislation on the requirements of "development" to a "higher" ideology - the construction of
"socialism". What the Move to the Left Strategy sought to do was to create a corporate state in
which all social classes would be organically integrated within it, namely workers (in unions),
peasants (in co-operatives) and the state bureaucracy (civil servants and parastatal officials.

Between 1962-1968 the government, first, seemed to favour the ILO-type of tripartism whereby
employers, unions and the state co-operated but under the framework of the Industrial Relations
Charter and the LCC with bipartisan collective bargaining. Although reference to ILO type
tripartism could still be made in the new structures under the ‘move to the left”, the new
structures including the trade unions would not be autonomous from both state and capital and
the 1970 Trade Unions Act was part of this strategy.

The material basis of the Move to the Left Strategy was that up to 1970 the Ugandan economy
was overwhelmingly controlled by western capital. From 1963 to 1970 the UPC government
moved marginally to control a very small portion of the economy by establishing parastatals:
These had only been piecemeal attempts by the government to help Ugandan Africans participate
marginally in an economy controlled by western capital. The Move to the Left
Strategy from 1968 onwards was meant to reverse this domination and nationalise "the
commending heights of the economy".

The Move to the Left Strategy was formally embedded in five documents the most important of
which was the Common Man's Charter (or Document No. 1) released in 1969. The Charter was
adopted so that for the realisation of the real meaning of independence, the resources of the
country, material and human, be exploited for the benefit of all the people of Uganda in
accordance with the principles of socialism.
Stating that it rejected, "both in theory and practice", feudalism, capitalism, vested interests of
any kind and foreign influence, the Charter declared: the guiding economic ptinciple will be that
the means of production and distribution must be in the hands of the people as a whole. The
fulfilment of this principle may involve nationalisation of the enterprises privately owned.

Accordingly in Document No. 4: The Nakivubo Pronouncements, on May Day 1970, at

Nakivubo Stadium, the nationalisation proposals were implemented. With immediate effect the
government was taking over 60% of 84 major industries including: all oil companies, some
industries, Kilembe mines, banks, plantations, insurance and credit institutions and the Kampala
and district bus services.

Nationalisation served two objects. First and most important, nationalisation as part of the Move
the Left Strategy was meant to expand the UPC regime's social base. Secondly nationalisation
itself did not actually serve the cause of socialism, as was being claimed because it was not

Go forth and set the world on fire….St. Ignatius of Loyola…..AMDG

necessarily antithetical to foreign capital. What was being proposed was not socialism as such
but a form of state capitalism in a peripheral economy.

It is in the context of UPC monopolisation of economic and political power under the guise of a
"move to the left" that changes in the structure of the trade union movement and the law
regulating it should be understood. The trade unions, institutionally were to be incorporated
within the new nationalised enterprises, while union leaders could expect to advance into the
ranks of the emergent state bourgeoisie. Thus in the Nakivubo Pronouncements (Document No.
4) union participation was revealed:
i. Kampala City Council (KCC) together with the trade unions would acquire 60% of
the shares in Kampala and District Buses.
ii. Outside Kampala, in the four regions, the District Administrations, urban authorities,
co-operative unions and the - trade unions would acquire 60% of the shares of the bus
companies based in the region.
iii. The workers and parastatal bodies would acquire 60% of the shares in every
important manufacturing industry and plantation

This union participation would consolidate the provisions of Document No. 3 which was a
president’s communication from the chair of 20th April, 1970 in which the Government declared
its intention to create one public service with a uniform salary structure for all government
officers, district administrations and urban authorities, the teaching service, parastatals and the
cooperatives, the UPC Party itself and even the trade unions. However the extent of union
participation in these enterprises was not clarified; it was still possible to marginalise them in
favour of the bureaucracy in parastatals, KCC and district administrations.

Following these documentary declarations and in particular the May Day Pronouncements
workers were enthusiastic and the trade union leaders pledged to support the government
measures. Union officials declared that the new political culture will guide the labour movement.

But the workers' and trade union leaders' enthusiasm was to some extent greatly misplaced
because an incorporationist strategy was being worked out by the government whereby organised
workers would lose their autonomy. As harbinger of what was to come during, the same May
Day Pronouncements the fundamental right of workers to collectively withdraw labour was
declared an anachronism and was to be abolished. Obote proclaimed:
With the entry of the common man into the fields of ownership and management of the
means of production and distribution, I declare to the organized workers, the trade unions
that the Trade Unions Act will be appropriately amended to abolish the archaic principle
and practice of strikes.

From a legal point of view, the political decisions were now reflected in the Trade Unions Act of
1973. The major effect of this Act was to destroy the organizational autonomy of individual trade
unions and the formation of only one trade union by law. The ULC was to be subjected to more
government control than hitherto. Finally the right to strike was abolished.

THE TRADE UNIONS ACT 1970

Go forth and set the world on fire….St. Ignatius of Loyola…..AMDG

The Trade Union Act which came into force on 31st December 1970 established a single union,
the Uganda Labour Congress (S.1) and dissolved all the autonomous trade unions originally
affiliated to ULC (S.2). Only branches of ULC instead of autonomous trade unions could now be
formed (S.8-9).

To create a very highly centralized structure it was provided that no union branch could be
registered unless it was composed of not less than one thousand registered members (S.9(3)).
And the definition of a trade union, which was superfluous as there was now only one trade
union with mere branches, was amended to mean "any combination whether temporary or
permanent, of a thousand or more persons other than an employees' association..." (S.72).

The right to organise now extended only to the formation of branches of ULC and not beyond
(S.55(1)).
The leadership of ULC or its branches was still restricted to Ugandan citizens (S.10(4)). In fact
the government had in October 1970 went beyond the 1965 mere exclusion of foreigners (mainly
Kenyans) from union leadership. On the pretext that it was trying to improve the conditions of
work of Ugandan workers the government expelled 33,000 Kenyan workers from Uganda.

To exclude union leaders from political leadership it was now provided that "no person shall
hold office in the ULC or in a registered branch union if he is a member of the National
Assembly" (S.22(5)). This section appears to have been aimed at the independent minded former
UTUC leaders who had refused to become part of the party or government machinery.

Government seems to have opted for control of the Trade Unions through the Ministry of Labour
Registrar and Labour Minister) and economic incorporation in the nationalised companies or
parastatals but could not risk direct political representation of workers lest organised opposition
developed.
While trade unions could participate in economic institutions they would not be allowed to
participate in political power.

Having ensured that the ULC would be under government supervision and direction government
made provision in the new law to ensure union recognition by employers where at least 10% of
employers in a given enterprise were members of the ULC union branch (S.18(1)(e).

The finances of ULC were also to be improved by expanding the sources to include:
subscriptions, investments, donations and check-off contributions from members. But all funds
would be kept by the ULC Treasurer and no branch could keep or invest funds without ULC
approval (S.40(2)). Here the aim was to strengthen the institution of ULC and to guarantee its
ability to co-operate with government once membership and finances were stabilised. But unlike
during the FUTU-UTUC days foreign donations and gifts could only be received after
government approval. S.42(3) provided that the ULC or its branch union shall not enter into any
agreement for aid of any nature with any foreign country or organisation without consultation
with and approval of the Minister.

And to enhance government control over the expenditure of union funds the Registrar of Trade
Unions was now empowered "to inspect the books of account... at any time he may think fit"
(S.45(3)).

Go forth and set the world on fire….St. Ignatius of Loyola…..AMDG

Finally the prohibition of strikes promised by President Obote on May Day 1970 was made into
law now. While peaceful picketing was maintained as a right (S.57(1)(a)), such picketing was
prohitited if done in such a way as, inter alia, "to cause complete cessation of work"
(S.52(1)).And no picketing was allowed at or near government(S.52(2)).

However although these provisions were intended to prevent strikes the Trade Disputes Act of
1964 had not yet been amended to close those options whereby theoretically strikes could take
place. The law was not to be thorougly reexamined in this respect in any case because in January
1971 Amin led a coup d'etat against the UPC-Obote regime and reversed most of the Move to the
Left innovations and aspects of the new Trade Union Act.

In the short term it operated (1970-1971) the Move to the Left strategy and its innovations did
not, in practice, involve ordinary workers and their leaders. Instead the UPC seems to have
focused its attention on negotiations with multinationals and the role of the state bureaucracy in
the "new socialist culture"

By August 1970 trade union leaders were complaining that in spite of the Move to the Left
innovations "not enough has been done in the way of educating the workers and trade union
leaders as to what role their movement is expected to play in order to achieve the.., goals
envisaged in the said proposals"

Similarly at an LCC meeting workers' representatives made a request to the

effect that the Ministry of Labour, in conjunction with the Milton Obote Foundation, should
organise a seminar, the purpose of which would be to educate workers on the role they would
have to play in our changing economy and to explain to them what the five documents are all
about

These demands by workers showed that the Move to the Left had little to do with "the principles
of socialism" as claimed by the Charter. The Charter itself had been conceived by Obote for "the
masses" without the latter's input or participation. This was socialism from above, a contradiction
in terms.

Finally, although no legal provision was made to make the ULC part of the only party the UPC
or of government, administratively the government was gearing itself to directly influence ULC
administration. In fact only five days before Amin's 25th January 1971 coup the Minister of
Labour announced the provisional formation of 14 branches of the ULC though he had no legal
powers under the new Act to do this (Uganda Argus 21.1.1971). Branch formation was legally
entirely in the hands of the workers (S.9 Trade Union Act 1970).

This formation of ULC branches and the dissolution of autonomous trade unions earlier by the
new Act marked the end of the trade union struggle for organisational autonomy in the first
decade of independence. The state had achieved through legislation and administrative fiat
temporary subjugation of the trade union movement but temporary because both the Move to the
Left strategy and the fundamental philosophy and structure of the ULC were reversed by the
Amin regime from 1971 onwards.

Go forth and set the world on fire….St. Ignatius of Loyola…..AMDG

In his Thesis Barya thus concludes;

But the change in strategy by government to advocate trade union unity also served a
wider strategy of the Move to the Left which, between 1968-1971, was an attempt by the
UPC to widen its social base under a populist "socialist" programme. The ideological
justification of policy changes also shifted from mere development to the building of an
egalitarian socialist society. But the laws regulating trade union organisation enacted in
1968 for the civil service and 1970 for the trade union movement generally were aimed at
co-opting trade unions and trade union leaders into the state economic institutions (the
mushrooming parastatals and joint venture companies) while at the same time excluding
them from political participation. Law here was an instrument of the nascent, state
bourgeoisie. Besides, the tripartite LCC became another way of legitimising legislation
which consistently failed to take into account or simply ignored union views and even
decisions unaminously reached.
Thus objectively the .developmentalist ideology on which the legislation of 1963-1965
and the socialist ideology on which the 1968-1970 legislation were based had the
consequence of protecting the emerging local dominant class, the state bourgeoisie at the
expense of the majority of the workers, peasants and the unemployed.

The more systematic strategy of the Move to the Left would have integrated the trade
unions and their leadership in particular to a corporatist state that sought to dissolve all
autonomous organisations - economic and political. For trade unions, the 1970 Trade
Unions Act was the main instrument for this purpose. However more administrative and
political methods of incorporating trade unions into the state were necessary to achieve
government objectives and were being put into place by the time of the 1971 coup. Law
therefore only provided an institutional framework while political and administrative
innovations would help actually concretise government objectives.

THE PERSISTENCE OF TRADE UNION ORGANISATION UNDER STATE

REPRESSION 1971-1979

Following the coup of 1971, many political decisions were made including the restoration of
autonomous trade unions under the Trade Unions Act (Amendment) Decree No. 10 of 1971. For
two years, there was no major development until 1973 when the Trade Unions Act (Amendment
Decree) 29 of 1973 was passed. Decree 29 of 1973 established NOTU i.e. the National
Organization of Trade Unions. However, under the decree, all registered trade unions had to
affiliate to it.

Secondly, a check-off system, allowing workers to contribute monthly to the trade union, i.e.
monthly trade union subscription but with their consent.

Thirdly, trade union leaders could become members of parliament. And finally, terms of
employer recognition were changed, i.e. from 10% for majority employee membership according
to the 1970 Act to 51% as a result of the 1973 Decree. However, provision for trade union
members

Go forth and set the world on fire….St. Ignatius of Loyola…..AMDG

The last amendment under Amin came in 1976. In this year, a few changes were made and the
law was consolidated into the famous Decree 20 of 1976. This decree is important for two
reasons, i.e. the changes which were made then, and that same law remained in force as Cap 223,
Laws of Uganda until 2006. So, the decree was simply renamed Act.

Changes in the 1976 Decree.

Two provisions which were important were maintained, i.e. the principle of compulsory
registration and affiliation to NOTU were maintained. Secondly, the rights, immunities and
liabilities existing then were maintained. These also have not significantly changed to-date.
Some of the changes under this decree included the following;

1. The purposes and objectives of NOTU were maintained.

2. The Registrar could interdict any officer for misuse or misappropriation of funds. And the
matter would be referred to the Trade Unions Tribunal for adjudication.
3. Freedom of association was expanded under Section 56 and workers were free to
organize in any trade union and to bargain collectively. And any employer was prohibited
from the following;
a) Interfering with or coercing an employee in the exercise of his rights.
b) Interfering with the formation of a trade union or the administration of NOTU or a
union.
c) Discriminating in regard to hire, tenure, or terms of employment because of one’s
membership of a union.
d) Discharging or dismissing an employee on account of involvement in lawful trade
union activities. Any employer who contravened these provisions committed an
offence. This is still the law, except that a few things were added in the 2006 Act.
In terms of membership, the decree did not apply to the armed forces, the police or prisons. It
also maintained the prohibition of Bank of Uganda employees and all established public servants
from joining trade unions as in the 1973 Amendment. This position remained the same until
1993 when the Trade Unions Laws (Miscellaneous Amendment) Statute No 10 of 1993 was
enacted by the National Resistance Council.

By 1973 when B.O.U employees were prohibited from joining trade unions, all public servants
or public officers had been prohibited form trade unions in amendments between 1963 and 1968.
Only group employees could join trade unions.

THE 1993 TRADE UNION LAWS (MISCALLENEOUS AMENDMENTS) STATUTE

NO. 10/1993.

Go forth and set the world on fire….St. Ignatius of Loyola…..AMDG

This law came about as a result of government policy at the time to expand the representation of
special interest groups into the interim parliament, the NRC. Under Legal Notice No 1 of 1986
(Amendment) Statute No. 1 of 1989, the NRC was expected to have existing/bush members,
constituency representatives, 10 NRA soldiers, a woman district representative, 5 youth
representatives, 20 members appointed by the president, and 3 workers’ representatives. There
was debate as to how the workers’ representatives would be chosen. Read Barya’s Working
Power No. 63. As a result of the trade union demands, freedom of association for workers was
expanded under the 1993 statute. Under the same statute, all Ugandan employees, public and
private were allowed to join a trade union except the following;

1. The army, police, prisons, local administration police, ISO, and ESO employees.
However, currently, it is only UPDF prohibited.
2. Officers in public service and Bank of Uganda who were at the level of Head of
Department and above, including schools and institutions of higher learning. All
personnel officers, deputy heads of departments and above, for B.O.U could also not join
a trade union.
3. The other categories, whether in a public service or not i.e. judges, magistrates, registrars,
personnel and labour officers, industrial relations officers and chiefs.
This therefore meant that apart from these few employees, all Ugandans in employment could
join a trade union under the 1993 law. Nonetheless, these restrictions still excluded many people.
As a result, many trade unions were formed, albeit as an unintended consequence i.e. UMWU,
UGAWU, UNMU, UNATU, etc. Currently, UNATU is the biggest union with more than
200,000 members.

Finally, although these changes were important in terms of freedom of association for workers,
the most significant law that frees all workers, except UPDF is the Labour Unions Act 2006.

THE LABOUR UNIONS ACT, 2006

The Labour Unions Act should be understood in two major different contexts.

It is made under the 1995 Constitution and therefore had to conform to the provisions of the
Constitutions at a formal level.
This law together with all the labour laws passed in 2006 was a result of the struggles of the
workers in Uganda and the international trade union movement. Though government had been
reluctant to pass the new labour laws, it was forced to pass them due to pressure from trade
unions, the international trade union movement and the American government.
All the four labour laws were passed in a period of four days, i.e. the Employment Act, the
Labour Unions Act, the Occupational Hazards and Health Safety Act, and the Labour Disputes
(Arbitration and Settlement) Act. This is because Uganda had registered under the African

Go forth and set the world on fire….St. Ignatius of Loyola…..AMDG

Growth and Opportunity Act, AGOA, to take advantage of exporting tariff free goods to the US
under the AGOA. It had therefore set up the Apparel Tri-Star Company in Bugolobi. This
company employed more than 2,000 female students. The Uganda Textiles, Garments, Leather
and Allied Workers Union (UTGLAWU) had mobilized over 90% of these women to join the
union. The company refused to recognize the union, and a complaint was filed with the ILO
Committee on Freedom of Association.
ILO requested government to recognize and implement workers’ freedom of association and also
pass new labour laws. The textile union enlisted the support of the AFL-CIO i.e. the American
Federation of Labour-Congress of the Industrial Organization, and the ITG-LWF i.e. the
International Textile Garments-Leather Workers Federation. These two labour federations took
up the matter with the US government and requested that unless the Ugandan government
respected workers and trade union rights and passed new labour laws, Uganda will be forced out
from the beneficiaries of AGOA. In December 2005, the Uganda government went to the United
States Congress to negotiate a stay in AGOA. The government was given a condition and an
ultimatum to pass the necessary labour laws. Immediately after the general elections of 2006,
Parliament sat and passed them in 3 days. Therefore, any challenge with the implementation of
the laws must be seen in the context of the pressure that was put on government since it was
unwilling to pass these laws voluntarily.

The importance of the Labour Unions Act.

This Act is generally in conformity with ILO Conventions 87 & 98 which deal with workers’
freedom of association. Whereas Convention 98 had been ratified in the early 60’s, Convention
87 was ratified in the late 1980’s.

Convention 87 gives in detail workers’ organizational rights. In fact, its name is Freedom of
Association and Protection of the Right to Organize Convention. The major provisions of that
convention are reflected in this Act and include the following;

1. The right of workers to establish their organization without previous authorization.

Article 2 of the Convention.
2. The right to establish and join organizations of their own choosing. Article 2
3. Autonomous administration and organization which includes the right to draw up their
constitutions, elect their representatives or leaders, and organize their administration
activities. Art. 3
4. The right to recognition and collective bargaining. Section 24 of the Act.
5. The right to strike. This right is expressly recognized by the ICESCR. However, it is not
expressly recognized by any ILO Convention. ILO Organs have instead concluded that
the right to strike is a workers’ right because it is a collorary of the right to organize.
6. There should be no dissolution or suspension of organizations by administrative
authority. Art. 4 of the Convention.

Go forth and set the world on fire….St. Ignatius of Loyola…..AMDG

 7. The right to establish federations and confederations, and to affiliate internationally. Art.
5
Under Ugandan law, there are two major provisions in the constitution on worker’s freedom of
association, namely, Article 29(1) (e) which includes “the freedom to form and join associations
or unions including trade unions... and other civic organizations.” On the other hand, Article
40(3) more specifically provides that, “every worker has a right to;

a) 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) Collective bargaining and representation.
c) Withdraw his or her labour according to law.”
Under the Labour Unions Act, No. 7 of 2006, a number of provisions are made mainly in four
areas;

1. Principles of workers’ freedom of association.

2. The administrative and regulatory function of the Registrar of Labour Unions.
3. Rights and immunities of workers and trade unions.
4. Administration and management of trade unions.
Freedom of Association

The freedom of association under the Act flows from the Constitution and ILO Conventions 87
& 98. The basic or major sections are Sections 3-5. Section 3 gives the basic right to organize
which is not new but what is added is the right of workers to withdraw their labour and take
industrial action.

Section 4 also restates existing law on employers not interfering with the workers’ right of
association, except that two provisions from the old law are added, namely, participation in
lawful industrial actions and that an employer should not prevent or otherwise hinder a union
official from accessing employees or omitting to accord any labour union official facilities to
enable him discharge his responsibilities promptly and efficiently. Contravening Section 4 is an
offence by the employer. This offence may be tried in the Industrial Court. Equally, any worker
who believes that his rights under Sections 3 & 4 have been violated by an employer or
prospective employer may have the matter taken to the Industrial Court for a remedy.

On the other hand, under Section 8, the historical issue of restraint of trade is dealt with. It is
provided that the reason that a trade union may be in restraint of trade does not;

1. Render a labour union or its members liable in criminal proceedings.

2. Render a union, a federation of unions, or members liable in tort.
3. Make any agreement or trust void or voidable.

Go forth and set the world on fire….St. Ignatius of Loyola…..AMDG

 4. Render any rule of a trade union or a federation unlawful or unenforceable.
The functions and purposes of a union are in Section 9.

Functios of a registrar and grounds for registration and de-registration.

There are a number of registration requirements and grounds for de-registration. Under this Act,
a Registrar of Labour Unions is appointed by the Minister and his major function is to keep and
maintain a register of labour unions, and such other books as are required by law ___ Sections 13
& 14. Under the repealed law, cap. 223 (Trade Unions Decree 1976), there were many
requirements for registration. The current requirements are under Sections 15, 16 & 17 of the Act
and are now only formal. All you need to show is that you have the constitution, a name with an
address, number of members, particulars of the leadership and a revenue stamp (duty paid) over
an amount prescribed by the Minister. Secondly, the members of the executive committee and
other committees must be persons “who are employed in Uganda” as per Section 16. The
applying union must not have names that may be confused with the name of an existing trade
union.

On the other hand, a Registrar may refuse to register a union under Section 19 on five ground;

1. Non-compliance with the provisions/requirements of the Act.

2. If any of the principle objects of the constitution is unlawful.
3. If any of the proposed leaders of the union has been convicted of an offence involving
fraud or dishonesty.
4. If the principle objects of the union are outside the scope of the union, i.e. if they are ultra
vires. Section 2 of the Act.
5. “If the labour union is directly or indirectly under the substantial control of an employer
or an organization of employers or a political party.”
Finally, a union may also be de-registered on a number of grounds, under Section 20. They
include;

1. If it has been dissolved legally.

2. If it has ceased to exist.
3. If registration was obtained by fraud, misrepresentation or mistake.
4. If any of its principle objects has/have become unlawful.
5. If the constitution of the union has become unlawful.
6. If following notice from the Registrar, a union continues to contravene any provision of
the Act.

Go forth and set the world on fire….St. Ignatius of Loyola…..AMDG

The decision of the Registrar in refusing to register or de-registering a union may be appealed to
the Industrial Court. And where a union is de-registered, it ceases to enjoy the rights and
immunities under Section 24.

The Rights and Immunities under the Act.

There are major rights and immunities available to 3 parties, i.e. a trade union, leaders of a union
and members. These are provided for under Part IV of the Act.

1. The first right of a union is to sue or be sued in its name. S. 24

2. No other suit or other legal proceeding may be brought in any civil court against a union,
an officer, or a member “in respect of any act done in contemplation of or in furtherance
of a dispute concerning a registered union…on the ground that such an act induces some
other person to break the contract of employment or that it is in interference with the
rights of some other person to dispose of his or her capital or his or her labour as he or
she wishes.” S. 24
3. The absolute immunity in tort. A suit brought against a union, an officer, or member of
the union “in respect of any tortious act alleged to have been committed by or on behalf
of the union...shall not be entertained by any court of law.”
4. Compulsory recognition by an employer. Every employer must recognize a union “for
purposes of collective bargaining…any registered union to which any of his or her
employees have previously subscribed their membership, or where the employees fall
within the scope of membership of the labour union.”
The practice is that the employer must sign a recognition agreement with the union.

Liability in contract.

A trade union may enter into a contract in its own names and is therefore liable under such a
contract. (S. 25). However, a trade union has limitations as a legal entity. A trade union cannot
hold property or land in its own names. The property of a union vests in its trustees. (S.28) and
therefore any actions or legal proceedings in court regarding the property of a union must be
brought in the names of the trustees.

Secondly, the union can only own or deal with land in the names of its trustees. (S.29). Trustees
of a union may be 3 or more under S.27. An officer of a union cannot be a trustee at the same
time to avoid conflict of interest. However, in order to be a trustee one must be either;

1. A member of the union or

2. A bank approved by the Registrar.
Leadership and Meetings.

Go forth and set the world on fire….St. Ignatius of Loyola…..AMDG

The leaders of every union must be persons engaged or employed in the industry or occupation
where the union is directly concerned. However, the law allows the Secretary General and
Treasurer to be non-members of a union. Therefore, they may be members or non-members of
the union. Secondly, a person cannot be a union leader “on a fulltime basis if he or she is
employed in another institution where he or she is paid a salary.” S.31. Thirdly, a person cannot
hold an office in a union if he or she has been convicted of an offence involving fraud or
dishonesty.

Union Meetings:

There are three major types;

1. Quinquennial Delegates Conference (QDC). This is for elections of union leaders and is
usually provided for in the union constitution. It sits every five years.
2. Annual Delegates Conference/Annual General Meeting (ADC/AGM). This is provided
for under S.33. It is a requirement for every union to hold an AGM. Where a union fails
to hold an AGM, the Registrar may call that meeting or direct that it be called.
3. Extra-ordinary Delegates Conference/Extra-ordinary General Meeting (E-DC/E-GM). An
E-DC is called at the request of not less than 10% of the voting members. Where the
executive fails to call such a meeting after a request, the matter may be reported to the
Registrar who may now call such a meeting. S.34.
The other administrative matters which are important relate to union administration. The Labour
Unions Act provides for a number of minimum administrative requirements for every trade
union.

1. There must be a registered office with a postal address in Uganda. Where a union
operates without such an office or postal address or without giving notice of the situation
of that office or operates in an office not notified to the Registrar, the Registrar may after
giving notice to the union cancel the registration of that union. S.39.
2. The Constitution of a union. Every union must have a constitution and that constitution
must provide for all the matters in the second schedule. A constitution of a union may
also be amended but such an amendment may be registered with the Registrar. Every
member of a union is entitled to a copy of the constitution upon payment of a reasonable
fee under S.41. In addition, any changes in the leadership or trustees of a union must be
prominently displayed in the offices of the union. S.42.
3. Funds of the union. Sources of funds of a union may include the following:
a) Subscription of its members. This is usually paid every month for every member.
This subscription in the more organized unions is by check-off system. This means
that an employee authorizes his/her employer to automatically deduct the money
every month.
b) Investments.

Go forth and set the world on fire….St. Ignatius of Loyola…..AMDG

 c) Donations. Usually, these donations are from sister unions or other international
organizations.
d) Other contributions made by employees other than through subscription. It is
significant to note that there is no longer any requirement that a union needs
permission from the minister to receive foreign donations.
On the other hand, funds of a union can only be expended on legally allowed objects/purposes
under S.46. The allowed objects are the following;

1. Payment of salaries, allowances and expenses of the union leaders or officers.

2. Expenses for the administration of the union, including auditing accounts.
3. Prosecuting or defending any legal proceedings against a member or an officer of the
union, for the purpose of securing or protecting any rights of the union or of the
member.
4. To conduct any labour dispute for the union or for the members.
5. Compensate members for any loss arising out of a labour dispute.
6. Allowances to members or their dependents on account of death, old age, sickness,
accident or unemployment. However, this is mostly possible with big unions.
7. Payment of subscriptions and fees to any federation or congress of trade unions to
which the union may be affiliated.
8. Payment of expenses for the education of a member.
9. Any other lawful object.
Every union must keep proper books of account. S.47. Secondly, the treasurer of the union must
prepare and place before the AGM a balance sheet of the union/audited accounts. The accounts
of the union must be audited by a registered auditor from a list approved by the Registrar for that
purpose. The union must in turn submit to the Registrar annual returns, namely, a balance sheet,
audited accounts, and the auditor’s report under S.52 and every member is free to inspect the
books of account and the related documents of the union. Equally, the Registrar has powers to
inspect books of account or to call for detailed accounts of the union where he suspects some
irregularity or mismanagement. S.53.

Powers of a Minister.

All the powers of the Minister over trade unions under the repealed law were removed in the
current Act, except;

1. The power to make regulations giving effect to the Act and other specific matters under
S.58(2)
The Minister also has powers to amend Schedule I with the approval of Cabinet.

Go forth and set the world on fire….St. Ignatius of Loyola…..AMDG

The Trade Unions Act Cap 223 is expressly repealed under S. 60

Go forth and set the world on fire….St. Ignatius of Loyola…..AMDG