By Naledi Nyoni
Harare – Government and the Amalgamated Rural Teachers Union of Zimbabwe (ARTUZ) appear to be edging towards resolving a long-standing labour dispute, following sustained pressure and recommendation from the International Labour Organization (ILO) to engage in national conciliation.
The fallout between ARTUZ and government dates back to a complaint filed by the union to the ILO, citing violations of trade union rights including intimidation, denial of collective bargaining, and suppression of legitimate union activities.
The case, listed as Case No. 3467, prompted the ILO to formally communicate with ARTUZ on October 8, 2024, confirming the government’s willingness to settle the dispute through “voluntary conciliation at the national level.”
In response, ARTUZ expressed openness to the process.
“We accepted participation in the conciliation process through an email sent back to your office on 21 October 2024,” wrote ARTUZ president Obert Masaraure in a follow-up letter to the ILO dated June 11, 2025.
However, the process soon hit turbulence.
On March 21, 2025, ARTUZ was informally approached by the Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions (ZCTU) to propose two conciliators for the national process.
However, on July 31, 2025, ARTUZ received appointment letters dated May 5, 2025 from the government, naming Johnlife Mawere and Caleb Mucheche as conciliators, a decision that the union strongly contested.
In a letter dated August 1, 2025, ARTUZ secretary general Robson Chere stated:
“While ARTUZ welcomes progress in the conciliation process, the union is concerned that the conciliators have been appointed in contravention of the parameters set out by the International Labour Organisation (ILO).
“When the matter was referred to conciliation, the ILO advised that ‘a team of conciliators agreed by both parties should be established,’” Chere wrote.
“However, ARTUZ (which is the other party to the proceedings) did not know about nor agree to the appointment of the two conciliators.”
“ARTUZ does not know by what process the two conciliators were nominated by the Tripartite Negotiating Forum (TNF) or when this was done,” Chere continued.
“ARTUZ does not know why its two proposed nominees as conciliators (being either Munyaradzi Gwisai or Obey Shava) were ignored or disregarded.
“ARTUZ does not know why it was only informed of the appointment of conciliators almost three months after the appointments were made, further wrote Chere.
The union has proposed that government either rescind one of the appointments and replace them with either Gwisai or Shava, or alternatively expand the team to four conciliators to include both ARTUZ nominees.
Tensions between ARTUZ and the government are rooted in more than failed talks.
The union has faced what it terms “systematic persecution,” including an alleged break-in at their offices by suspected state agents on May 12, 2025.
“The intruders dismantled office surveillance equipment and went through files kept at the office,” Masaraure noted, adding that the incident was reported to Hatfield Police (RRB 6416078), but no investigations followed.
In another disturbing incident on April 24, 2025, police blocked ARTUZ from hosting its elective congress unless officers were allowed to attend.
“The presence of State security agents compromised the leadership election process as some prospective leaders could not freely campaign,” ARTUZ claimed.
Central to the dispute is also government’s failure to align the Public Service Act with the 2013 Constitution, a reform pledged at the 109th ILO Conference in 2021.
“Civil servants are still denied the right to collective bargaining and right to strike,” the union wrote, citing the resulting erosion of working conditions.
While recent indications suggest government is now engaging on the matter, ARTUZ has made it clear that unless the process adheres to agreed principles, including fair representation in the conciliation team, the case should revert to the ILO for further handling.
Efforts to obtain official comment from the Ministry of Public Service and Labour were unsuccessful at the time of publication.
As the six-month suspension of ILO proceedings approaches expiry, all eyes remain on whether government will honour its commitment to fair and transparent engagement — or if the matter will return to Geneva for further scrutiny.
