HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF THE EMPLOYMENT ORDINANCE (CAP 366).

The Employment Ordinance (Cap. 366) of Tanzania has its roots in the colonial era, a time when
labor relations were largely shaped by the needs of the colonial economy and the interests of
employers, often at the expense of workers. Introduced by the British colonial government in the
1930s, the Ordinance was designed to regulate employment conditions and address growing
concerns about workers' rights within the colonial administration and private sector enterprises,
including those in agriculture, mining, and manufacturing.

During the colonial period, the employment landscape in Tanzania was characterized by a
significant imbalance of power between employers (who were mostly European or foreign
entities) and workers, who were predominantly African and had limited legal protections. The
Employment Ordinance was a response to this imbalance, aiming to establish a legal framework
that could provide workers with basic protections, such as the regulation of working hours,
wages, and conditions of employment. It also laid the foundation for the establishment of dispute
resolution mechanisms such as labor officers and labor tribunals, which were intended to mediate
and resolve conflicts between employers and employees.

However, the Ordinance reflected the colonial mindset, with provisions that were not particularly
worker-friendly or equitable. It did not offer comprehensive protections against unfair dismissal,
discrimination, or exploitation, and it often favored employers in disputes. Additionally, access to
legal recourse under the Ordinance was often limited, particularly for workers in remote areas
who lacked awareness of their rights or access to legal representation.

In the post-independence period, the Employment Ordinance remained in force until it was
gradually overtaken by the need for more progressive labor laws that reflected the social and
political changes in the country. As Tanzania moved toward independence in 1961 and after,
there was an increasing call for reforms to protect workers more effectively and ensure that
employment laws were more aligned with Tanzania's aspirations for social justice and economic
development. This culminated in the enactment of the Employment and Labour Relations Act of
2004, which replaced the Employment Ordinance and introduced a more comprehensive and
worker-friendly framework for labor relations, providing more robust dispute resolution
mechanisms and greater protections for employees.
The Employment Ordinance thus played a crucial historical role in shaping the early landscape
of labor law in Tanzania, setting the stage for later, more modern employment legislation.
Despite its shortcomings, its establishment marked a significant step toward the formal
regulation of labor relations in the country.

CAUSES OF DISPUTES UNDER EMPLOYMENT ORDINANCES (CAP 366)

Disputes under the Employment Ordinance (Cap. 366) were often a result of various causes
related to the employment relationship. Despite the Ordinance providing some mechanisms for
dispute resolution, these were limited and often insufficient in ensuring fair treatment for
employees, leading to frequent conflicts between employers and workers. Among the most
common causes of disputes were unfair dismissal, breach of employment contracts, unlawful
wage deductions, discrimination, unsafe working conditions, failure to provide statutory leave or
benefits, and failure to honor retirement benefits. Each of these issues led to legal battles, with
employees challenging their employers in courts or tribunals, seeking redress for perceived
violations of their rights. These disputes reflected the flaws within the Ordinance and pointed to
the need for more comprehensive labor legislation that would better protect workers’ rights and
ensure fair and just working conditions.

Unfair dismissals.

One of the primary sources of disputes under the Employment Ordinance was unfair dismissal.
The provisions for termination in the Ordinance were seen as inadequate in protecting employees
from arbitrary dismissals, which often led to legal conflicts. Although Section 14 allowed for
termination of employment with notice, it did not clearly define unfair dismissal or the process
by which dismissals should be justified. This created an environment where employers could
terminate employees without providing sufficient reasons or adhering to procedural fairness. In
Gunga v. Busega District Council (1972), for instance, the court found the dismissal to be
unfair as it was not supported by adequate justification or procedure, ruling in favor of the
employee. Similarly, in Peter Masika v. Tanzania Breweries Ltd (1973), the dismissal was
found to be without just cause, and the employee was awarded compensation. These cases
illustrate the challenges faced by employees under the Ordinance, where dismissals could be
made arbitrarily, and workers lacked sufficient legal protection against such actions.

Breach of employment contract.

Another significant cause of disputes was breach of employment contracts, which occurred when
employers failed to honor the terms agreed upon in the contract. This often involved non-
payment of wages, failure to provide agreed benefits, or other violations of contractual terms.
Under Section 11 of the Employment Ordinance, employers were required to adhere to the
employment contract, but the Ordinance lacked clear enforcement mechanisms. In John Komba
v. The Tanzania Railways Corporation (1975), the employer was found in breach of contract
for failing to pay the agreed-upon wages, and the court ruled in favor of the employee, ordering
compensation. Similarly, in Mwandu v. Mwanza District Council (1982), the court upheld the
employee’s claim for unpaid wages, further solidifying the notion that breaches of contract were
a common source of dispute under the Ordinance. These cases highlighted the fact that despite
the existence of legal obligations for employers, many employees struggled to secure their
entitlements due to the lack of clear enforcement mechanisms.

Unlawful wage deductions

Unlawful wage deductions also served as a frequent cause of disputes under the Employment
Ordinance. Employees often challenged deductions made from their wages, especially when
these deductions were not authorized or not specified in their employment contracts. Section 8 of
the Ordinance allowed employers to make deductions under certain conditions, such as for taxes
or specific benefits. However, unauthorized deductions were prohibited, and disputes arose when
employees believed the deductions were not justified. In Moshi v. Tanganyika Petroleum
Company Ltd (1967), the court ruled that unauthorized deductions from wages were unlawful
unless they were clearly authorized by the employment contract or by law. This case underscored
the importance of ensuring that wage deductions were transparent and justified, and it
highlighted the role of the courts in protecting employees from unlawful practices by employers.

Discrimination and unequal treatment

Discrimination and unequal treatment were also significant sources of dispute under the
Ordinance, as the legislation did not explicitly address issues such as gender, race, or other forms
of discrimination in the workplace. Although Sections 4 and 6 required employers to maintain
fair working conditions, there were no clear provisions prohibiting discrimination based on
characteristics such as gender or ethnicity. This gap led to numerous legal challenges, with
employees alleging that they were subjected to unequal treatment. In Mollel v. The Board of
Trustees of the University of Dar es Salaam (1983), for example, the employee argued that he
had been discriminated against in comparison to others in similar positions. The court ruled in
favor of the employee, recognizing the discriminatory practices and awarding compensation.
This case highlighted the limitations of the Ordinance, as it lacked comprehensive provisions to
address the growing concerns of discrimination and inequality in the workplace.

Unsafe working conditions

Unsafe working conditions were another frequent cause of disputes under the Employment
Ordinance, particularly as the legislation did not provide detailed provisions on workplace safety
or health standards. Although Section 15 required employers to ensure proper working
conditions, the absence of specific safety regulations made it difficult to protect employees in
hazardous work environments. In Shabani v. Nguvumali Ltd (1975), the employee claimed that
the employer had failed to maintain safe working conditions, resulting in an injury. The court
found in favor of the employee, ordering compensation for the injury sustained due to the unsafe
conditions. This case illustrates the importance of having clear and enforceable safety standards
in the workplace, which was lacking in the Ordinance at the time.

Failure to provide statutory leave or benefits

The failure to provide statutory leave or benefits was another issue that led to disputes, as many
employees found that their employers did not grant them the leave or benefits they were entitled
to under the law. Although Section 13 provided for annual leave, it did not explicitly cover other
types of leave such as sick leave, maternity leave, or other benefits, leading to confusion and
disputes. In Mwanza v. Kiswahili Language Board (1980), the court ruled that the employee
was entitled to paid leave as stipulated in the Ordinance and found the employer liable for failing
to honor this entitlement. Such cases revealed the gaps in the Ordinance, where employees were
left vulnerable to exploitation due to the lack of comprehensive provisions regarding leave and
benefits.
Failure to honor retirement benefits

The failure to honor retirement benefits was another frequent cause of disputes under the
Employment Ordinance, as employers were sometimes accused of not providing the retirement
benefits, pensions, or gratuities outlined in the employment contract. Section 17 of the Ordinance
addressed retirement benefits, but its vagueness regarding the scope and administration of these
benefits often led to disputes. In Madole v. Tanzania Electric Supply Company Ltd (1984),
the court ruled in favor of the employee, finding that the employer had failed to provide the
retirement benefits as required under the contract. This case underscored the need for clear and
enforceable provisions regarding retirement benefits, an issue that was only partially addressed
by the Ordinance.

The Employment Ordinance (Cap. 366) established certain mechanisms or machinery for the
settlement of disputes between employers and employees. These mechanisms were primarily
designed to address grievances arising from employment contracts, workplace conditions, and
breaches of statutory rights. However, the machinery under the Ordinance was limited in scope,
formalistic, and often inaccessible to employees, particularly those in remote areas or in lower
economic strata. Below is an overview of the machinery for dispute resolution under the
Employment Ordinance, its processes, and its strengths and weaknesses.

MACHINERY FOR SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES UNDER THE EMPLOYMENT

ORDINANCE (CAP. 366).

Role of Labor Officers

Labor officers were the first point of contact in the dispute resolution process under the
Employment Ordinance. These officers, appointed by the government, were tasked with
mediating disputes between employers and employees. Their primary role was to facilitate
communication between the parties, investigate complaints, and attempt to resolve disputes
amicably before they escalated to formal adjudication. Labor officers had the authority to
summon parties, examine witnesses, and gather evidence to understand the nature of the dispute.
The involvement of labor officers was beneficial as it provided a relatively accessible and less
formal avenue for employees to seek redress. However, the effectiveness of labor officers was
often criticized due to inadequate training, limited resources, and their perceived bias toward
employers, particularly during the colonial era. Additionally, labor officers lacked the
enforcement powers to compel compliance with their recommendations, which reduced the
efficacy of this mechanism in ensuring equitable outcomes.

Labor Tribunals

Labor tribunals served as the formal adjudicative bodies under the Employment Ordinance.
These tribunals were tasked with hearing and resolving disputes that could not be settled through
mediation by labor officers. The tribunals operated in a quasi-judicial manner, with the authority
to hear evidence, examine witnesses, and issue binding decisions on matters brought before
them. The labor tribunals provided a more structured platform for resolving complex disputes,
such as those involving unfair dismissal, breach of contract, or unlawful wage deductions.
However, the process was often criticized for being overly legalistic and inaccessible to many
workers, particularly those without legal representation or sufficient knowledge of the law. The
formal nature of the proceedings also made it difficult for employees to present their cases
effectively, leading to outcomes that often favored employers, who were better resourced and
legally informed.

Conciliation and Arbitration

Conciliation and arbitration were alternative dispute resolution mechanisms under the
Employment Ordinance. Conciliation involved the intervention of a neutral third party, typically
a labor officer or an appointed conciliator, to assist the parties in reaching a mutually agreeable
settlement. If conciliation failed, disputes could be referred to arbitration, where an arbitrator
would issue a binding decision after reviewing the evidence and arguments presented by both
parties. While conciliation and arbitration offered less adversarial and more time-efficient means
of resolving disputes compared to labor tribunals, they were rarely utilized effectively under the
Ordinance. The lack of clear procedural guidelines and the limited availability of skilled
conciliators and arbitrators hindered the widespread use of these mechanisms. Moreover,
arbitration decisions were sometimes viewed as biased or unfair due to the arbitrators’ affiliations
or lack of independence.

In cases where the machinery under the Employment Ordinance failed to provide satisfactory
redress, employees could seek judicial remedies through the courts. The courts had the authority
to hear appeals from labor tribunal decisions or to address disputes that fell outside the scope of
the Ordinance. Employees could file lawsuits against employers for breaches of contract,
unlawful termination, or other employment-related grievances.

While judicial remedies offered a final recourse for employees, this option was often inaccessible
due to the high cost of litigation, lengthy court procedures, and the complex legal requirements
involved. Additionally, many employees were reluctant to pursue legal action against employers
due to fears of retaliation or the risk of being blacklisted in their industries.

Strengths and Weaknesses of the Machinery

The machinery for dispute settlement under the Employment Ordinance had certain strengths,
such as the provision of labor officers and tribunals as designated forums for resolving disputes.
These mechanisms aimed to provide employees with an avenue to address grievances without
immediately resorting to costly and time-consuming court processes. However, the system was
plagued by several weaknesses, including inadequate resources, lack of enforcement powers, and
procedural complexities that disadvantaged employees, particularly those in vulnerable positions.
One of the major criticisms of the machinery under the Ordinance was its inability to ensure
equitable outcomes for workers. The formalistic and employer-centric approach often left
employees feeling disenfranchised and unsupported. Additionally, the lack of emphasis on
preventive measures, such as workplace education and proactive conflict management, meant
that disputes were often allowed to escalate unnecessarily. The limited geographic reach of labor
officers and tribunals also posed challenges for workers in rural areas, who found it difficult to
access these mechanisms and were often forced to endure exploitative working conditions
without recourse.
METHODS OF RESOLVING DISPUTES UNDER EMPLOYMENT ORDINANCES
(CAP.366)

The Employment Ordinance (Cap. 366) provided several methods for resolving disputes between
employers and employees. While the Ordinance was foundational in regulating labor relations in
Tanzania, the dispute resolution methods it offered were limited in scope and accessibility. These
methods included mediation by labor officers, adjudication by labor tribunals, conciliation and
arbitration, and judicial remedies. Below is an in-depth analysis of these methods:

Mediation by Labor Officers

Labor officers were the first line of defense in the resolution of employment disputes under the
Employment Ordinance. Appointed by the government, labor officers played a mediatory role,
aiming to resolve disputes amicably without resorting to formal adjudication. Their
responsibilities included investigating complaints, interviewing the disputing parties, and
facilitating discussions to reach a mutually acceptable resolution.

Mediation was informal and less intimidating compared to court proceedings, making it more
accessible to employees who might lack legal knowledge. However, the effectiveness of this
method was often limited due to a lack of adequately trained labor officers, insufficient
resources, and perceived biases, especially during the colonial era when the Ordinance was
introduced. Furthermore, labor officers did not have binding authority, so their recommendations
could be disregarded by employers.

Adjudication by Labor Tribunals

Labor tribunals served as formal bodies established under the Employment Ordinance to
adjudicate disputes that could not be resolved through mediation. The tribunals operated as
quasi-judicial bodies, tasked with hearing evidence, examining witnesses, and making decisions
on issues such as unfair dismissal, wage disputes, and breaches of employment contracts. This
method provided a structured forum for addressing complex employment disputes. However, it
was criticized for its overly legalistic and formal procedures, which often disadvantaged
employees who lacked legal representation or familiarity with the law. Employers, being better
resourced, were generally in a stronger position to present their cases effectively. Moreover, the
accessibility of labor tribunals was limited, particularly for workers in rural areas, making this
method less effective for those most in need.

Conciliation and Arbitration

Conciliation and arbitration were alternative dispute resolution methods under the Employment
Ordinance. Conciliation involved a neutral third party, typically a labor officer or conciliator,
who assisted the disputing parties in reaching a voluntary settlement. This method emphasized
dialogue and compromise, aiming to preserve the employment relationship where possible.

Arbitration, on the other hand, was more formal and involved an arbitrator making a binding
decision after hearing evidence and arguments from both sides. These methods were
advantageous in being less adversarial and more efficient than tribunal or court proceedings.
However, the effectiveness of conciliation and arbitration under the Employment Ordinance was
undermined by the lack of clear procedural guidelines and the limited availability of trained
conciliators and arbitrators. Arbitration decisions were also occasionally criticized for being
biased or inconsistent.

Judicial Remedies

When disputes could not be resolved through mediation, tribunals, or arbitration, employees had
the option to seek redress in the courts. The courts acted as a final arbiter for employment
disputes, especially in cases involving breaches of employment contracts, wrongful termination,
or claims for unpaid wages and benefits. While judicial remedies provided a definitive
resolution, this method was often inaccessible to employees due to the high cost of litigation,
lengthy procedures, and the complexity of legal requirements. Many workers, especially those in
vulnerable positions, were reluctant to take their disputes to court due to fear of retaliation or
being blacklisted by employers. Additionally, the courts’ formality and adversarial nature often
made this method daunting for employees without legal representation.

Direct Negotiation

In some instances, disputes were resolved through direct negotiation between the employer and
the employee, without the involvement of labor officers, tribunals, or courts. This method relied
on the willingness of both parties to engage in dialogue and find a mutually acceptable solution.
While direct negotiation was simple and cost-effective, it heavily favored employers, who often
held greater bargaining power. Employees, particularly those with little legal knowledge or
resources, were at a disadvantage in such negotiations, making this method ineffective in
ensuring equitable outcomes.

ADVANTAGES OF THE EMPLOYMENT ORDINANCE (CAP 366) IN DISPUTE

RESOLUTION.

The Employment Ordinance (Cap. 366) had several notable advantages that contributed to its
significance as a foundational piece of labor legislation in Tanzania. One of the key benefits was
the formalization of dispute resolution mechanisms, which provided a structured framework for
addressing employment conflicts. Before the Ordinance, disputes between employers and
employees were often handled informally or left unresolved, creating a power imbalance that
favored employers. By introducing formal mechanisms such as mediation by labor officers,
adjudication by labor tribunals, and judicial oversight, the Ordinance ensured that workers had a
legal avenue to address grievances. This structure helped establish a more balanced relationship
between employers and employees, preventing arbitrary actions by employers and encouraging
adherence to employment contracts.

Another advantage was the accessibility provided through labor officers. Labor officers were
tasked with mediating disputes at an early stage, offering an alternative to formal adjudication.
This informal process was less intimidating for workers, particularly those with limited legal
knowledge or resources. Mediation also helped to resolve minor issues promptly, preventing
them from escalating into larger conflicts that could disrupt workplace harmony. While the labor
officers’ powers were limited, their presence acted as an intermediary step that many workers
found approachable. Similarly, the Ordinance emphasized amicable dispute resolution through
conciliation and arbitration. These methods encouraged dialogue and compromise, fostering
better relationships between employers and employees even after disputes were settled.
Conciliation and arbitration were also less adversarial and time-consuming than court
proceedings, making them a practical option for resolving conflicts efficiently.
The establishment of labor tribunals was another significant advantage of the Employment
Ordinance. These specialized bodies provided a forum for resolving disputes related to
employment, such as unfair dismissal, wage disputes, and breaches of contract. By focusing
exclusively on labor matters, tribunals were better equipped to handle the complexities of
employment disputes than regular courts. They also helped reduce the burden on the judicial
system, allowing cases to be resolved more quickly. Additionally, the Ordinance’s provision for
judicial remedies ensured a higher level of accountability. If disputes could not be resolved
through mediation, arbitration, or tribunals, employees could seek redress in the courts. This
judicial oversight acted as a safeguard, ensuring that workers had a final avenue for justice and
deterring employers from engaging in unfair practices.

The Ordinance also preventing industrial unrest. By providing a legal framework for
addressing grievances, it reduced the likelihood of strikes, protests, and other forms of industrial
action. Workers were given a lawful means to voice their concerns and seek redress, which
contributed to maintaining stability in the labor market. Furthermore, the Ordinance introduced
essential principles of worker protection, such as the requirement for employers to honor
employment contracts, provide fair wages, and maintain proper working conditions. While these
protections were limited in scope, they marked a significant step toward safeguarding workers’
rights and reducing exploitation.

Employment Ordinance encouraged the use of alternative dispute resolution (ADR)

mechanisms, such as conciliation and arbitration, which were less formal and less costly than
litigation. These methods were particularly beneficial for employees who lacked the financial
resources to pursue lengthy court battles. Additionally, the Ordinance’s emphasis on regulating
employment contracts helped reduce misunderstandings and disputes, as both parties were
legally obligated to adhere to the agreed terms. This focus on contractual obligations not only
strengthened labor relations but also provided a foundation for the development of more
comprehensive labor laws in the future. Despite its limitations, the Employment Ordinance laid
the groundwork for subsequent legislation, such as the Employment and Labour Relations Act of
2004, which addressed many of the weaknesses in the earlier framework while building on its
strengths.

REFERENCES.

 Books and Readings:

 Ndunguru, A. (2017). Labour Law in Tanzania: A Comprehensive Guide. Dar es
Salaam: Tanzania Publishing House.
 Kibwana, K. (2015). Employment Law and Industrial Relations in East Africa.
Nairobi: East African Law Publishers.
 Mwaikambo, S., & Marandu, K. (2018). Dispute Resolution in Tanzanian Labor Law.
Dar es Salaam: Legal Insights Publishers.
 Lissu, T. (2016). Workers’ Rights and Legal Protection in Tanzania. Zanzibar: New
Horizon Press.
 Chachage, B. (2019). Employment Rights in Tanzania: A Legal Analysis. Dar es
Salaam: University of Dar es Salaam Press.
 Journals:
 Tenga, J. (2020). “Dispute Resolution in Tanzanian Labour Law: An Analysis of the
Security of Employment Act.” Journal of East African Legal Studies, 34(2), 95-112.
 Kamugisha, S. (2021). “The Role of Mediation and Arbitration in Employment
Disputes in Tanzania.” Tanzania Law Journal, 22(4), 45-60.
 Nguvumali, A. (2019). “Breach of Employment Contracts and Workers’ Rights: Case
Law and Legal Trends in Tanzania.” Journal of African Employment Law, 18(3), 128-
145.
  Mkunda, P. (2020). “Fair Dismissal in Tanzanian Law: Legal Challenges and
Opportunities.” African Labour Law Review, 14(1), 78-92.
 Cases laws.
 Rev Christopher Mtikila v. Tanzania (1994) [Tanzania High Court].
 Lilian Jesus Fortes v. Republic (CA) No. 151 of 2018 [Court of Appeal of Tanzania].
 Mtatiro Mwita v. Mwita Marianya [Tanzania High Court, 2023].
 Alexander Kalibonaki v. The Republic (2016) [Tanzania Court of Appeal].
 Yahaya Abedo v. The Republic (2015) [Tanzania High Court].
 Yohana v. Republic No. 222 [Tanzania Court of Appeal, 2014].
 Websites:
 Tanzania Ministry of Labour and Employment. (n.d.). Employment and Labour
Relations in Tanzania. Retrieved from www.mol.go.tz
 The Commission for Mediation and Arbitration (CMA). (n.d.). Dispute Resolution
Mechanisms in Tanzania. Retrieved from www.cma.go.tz
 Tanzania Law Reform Commission. (n.d.). Labour Laws and Reforms in Tanzania.
Retrieved from www.tlrctz.go.tz
 Legal Aid Tanzania. (2021). Workers’ Rights in Tanzania: A Guide to Employment
Laws. Retrieved from www.legalaidtanzania.org