the evolution and the changing face in contract of employment in tanzania

8/10/2019 The Evolution and the Changing Face in Contract of Employment in Tanzania

1/22

Open University Law Journal, 2013, Vol. 4, No. 2:51-72

51

The evolution and the changing face in contract ofemployment in Tanzania

Ferdinand M. Temba

Abst rac t

This article explores the evolution of contract of employment in Tanzania. Itstarts by examining the contract of employment and its evolution in Britainsince our legal system and labour legislation owes their origin from the

common law. The article envisages that the concept of contract ofemployment is linked with the common law contract of employment, and that

its essential features have been shaped by legislation. It argues that overtimethe nature of contract of employment has changed as the result of the

changing nature of the global economy causing cross-cutting challengeshindering effective protection of workers rights by the contract of

employment including ever-changing patterns of engagement threatening theemployment contract and efficacy of labour laws; the economic informalitywhich has resulted to informalization, externalization and casualisation; and

the changing dimension of employee-employer relationship which creates

new opportunities and new types of vulnerabilities as well. However,presumption of employee as introduced in the Labour Institutions Act, 2004

has assisted in determining the scope of the workers regulated under thecontract of employment. Thus, this article supports endeavours by the

country of borrowing and bending labour law principles from otherjurisdictions in improving its labour regime and lay the groundwork forcontext-specific regulatory strategies given the non-existence of a one-size-

fits-all labour regime.

Key words: Contract of employment, evolution in labour laws, commonlaw

Introduction

The article explores the evolution of contract of employment in Tanzania. Reflectingcommon law principles, the article posits that the contract of employment in

Tanzania like in many other jurisdictions has undergone many changes whichultimately led to the problem of ascertaining the parties. Having traced the evolution

of the contract of employment the article seeks to examine the notion of the meaning

of employee from both the perspective and context of the current constitutional

Assistant Lecturer, Faculty of Law, Mzumbe University. E-Mail: [email protected]
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]


2/22

F.M.Temba

52

dispensation, labour laws1in the system of governance in Tanzania.2Arguably, thearticle sees it important to determine the meaning of employee since it is the startingpoint of contract of employment. Only employees enjoy the protection of labour

legislation and further examine the legitimacy in terms of bringing disputes beforelabour tribunals for recourse which rests on holding up the regulation of labour

market to primarily curb unnecessary flow of moot disputes in our labour disputes

resolutions forums.

Further, the article acknowledges that in the evolution and development of the

contract of employment in Tanzania changes have occurred especially after theintroduction to our labour laws the provisions which are similar to the South African

Labour laws3 and others which maintains the traditional employment relationship

which based on the common law contract of employment.

The article starts by providing the evolution of the contract of employment. It also,explores legislative development in Tanzania describing the role played by the

Germans and British in shaping Tanzanias contract of employment. It furtherdescribes the changing face of contract of employment in Tanzania which resulted

from the global economic changes which among others have extended the scope of

employment relationship leaving many workers outside the scope of the protection oflabour laws. Concluding remarks winds up this paper.

The evolution of the contract of employment

In tracing the origin of contract of employment in Tanzania one may not avoid todiscuss its evolution in Britain since our employment relationship is based on

common law contract of service. Different authors have given their views in as far asthe evolution of employment contract in Western Europe, Britain inclusive.Veneziani, for instance, maintained that the contract of employment had reached

1The Employment and Labour Relations Act 6 of 2004 (ELRA), The Labour Institutions Act, No 7of 2004 and the subsidiary legislation made under these two principal legislation.2 In this article, unless otherwise stated, the term Tanzania excludes Zanzibar. Tanzania isintended here to be restricted to Tanzania Mainland (the former Tanganyika), because in both parts

of the union that is to say Mainland Tanzania and Tanzania Island (Zanzibar) there are twoministries responsible for labour matters and this paper is restricted to Mainland Tanzania.

3The South African employment relationship has evolved out of the common law principles of thecontract of service and Roman-Dutch dichotomy between the locatio conductio operarumi.e. thecontract of letting and hiring of services between master and servant; and the locatio conductiooperis i.e. the contract of letting and hiring of some definite piece of work between the principal

and a contractor. (For detailed discussion on the evolution of contract of employment in SouthAfrica particularly on locatio conductio operarum and locatio conductio operissee Le Roux, R.,The evolution of the contract of employment in South Africa, Industrial Law Journal, June 2010,Vol. 39, No. 2, pp. 149 -150.


3/22

Evolution of contract of employment

53

maturity throughout Western Europe, by the beginning of the twentieth century.4Tothe contrary the views of Simon Deakin on the evolution of the contract ofemployment in Britain, has recently suggested that the contract of employment as a

concept embracing all forms of wage dependent labour or as a unitary concept ofemployment only reached maturity towards the middle of the twentieth century,

mostly as a result of social welfare legislation.5

Nevertheless, prior to the maturity of contract of employment in the mid of 20th

century as accepted by many labour law proponents, the first labour statutes, passed

by way of response to the labour shortage which followed the Black Death of 1346,was the Statute of Labourers of 1351. The Statute did not just formalize the system of

wage regulation: it also helped to seed legal innovations which led to the promissory

action of assumpsit, the forerunner of modern contract law.6

The sixteenth centurysaw, alongside the diminution in the role of the Church as an institution of socialprotection, the extension of state control over labour, through the passage ofnumerous poor law statutes and of the pivotal Statute of Artificers of 1562, which

was to provide the legislative foundation for wage setting, service in agriculture andthe activities of the urban guilds up to the early nineteenth century.

7The industrial

revolution in 1750 brought about the uncertainty in the application of the Statute of

Artificers of 1562 to industrial workers hence the enactment of several master andservant laws between 1747 and 1867.

8The first of these so-called Master and Servant

Acts was enacted in 1747 on the basis that the existing laws for the regulation of

servants and the payment of their wages are insufficient and defective.9While the

master and servant relationship under these laws was formally founded in contract,

its substance suggested very little mutuality. Criminal law was used to enforcecontracts and breaches of contract by servants were adjudicated by magistrates and

could result in imprisonment, fines or even whipping. Similar recourse, however,was not available to servants.

10

4Le Roux,R.,The regulation of work: whither the contract of employment?: an analysis of thesuitability of the contract of employment to regulate the different forms of labour marketparticipation by individual workers, PhD Thesis, University of Cape Town, June 2008, p. 125Ibid6 Deakin, S., The comparative evolution of the employment relationship, Centre for BusinessResearch, University of Cambridge, Working Paper No. 317, December 2005 p. 3; Deakin, S.,The

Comparative Evolution of the Employment Relationship,in Guy Davidov and Brian Langille (eds)Boundaries and Frontiers of Labour Law: Goals and Means in the Regulation of Work, Hart

Publishing, Portland, 2006, p.937Ibid.8Le Roux, (n4), p. 12.9 Deakin, S., The Contract of Employment: A Study in Legal Evolution, ESRC Centre for

Business Research, University of Cambridge Working Paper No. 20, June 2001 p. 1910Le Roux, (n4), citing Steinmetz, W., Was there a Dejuridification of Individual EmploymentRelations in Britain? in Steinmetz, W (ed) Private Law and Social Inequality in the Industrial Age 2000 265-312 pp. 269-282.)


4/22

F.M.Temba

54

The early workmen legislations11

limited the definition of a workman to thoseworking under a contract of service or apprenticeship but did not apply to non-

manual workers earning above a certain threshold, casual workers, outworkers andfamily workers.

12 Similarly the National Insurance Act 1911 applied to employed

persons employed under a contract of service or apprenticeship, but once again

excluded non-manual workers earning above a certain threshold, casual workers,commission agents, some public servants such as civil servants, military personnel

and teachers as well as some female outworkers.13

Therefore, early legislative

schemes excluded higher status and lower status workers from protection of thecontract of service. The legislative exclusion of some workers from the protection of

contract of service led to the development of the control test by the courts in the

twentieth century. This was evident in the case of Gould v. Minister of NationalInsurance And Another,

14 in which the principles laid down in determining the

control of the employer to the employee were stated reference been made from thecase of Short v. Hendersona case in which the House of Lords under the Workmans

Compensation Act, (Lord Thankerton) at 115 recapitulated with approval the fourindicators of the contract of service i.e. the masters power of selection of his servant;

the payment of wages and other remuneration; the masters right to control the

method of doing the work; and the masters right of suspension or dismissal.15

Kahn-Freund

suggested that the control test developed in the context of the common

law principle of the employers vicarious liability for torts of a servant acting in the

course of employment.16

However, the control test, while used during the nineteenthcentury, was not as important as the concept of exclusive service to determine the

application of the Master and Servants law and initially it was not even used in thecontext of employment disputes.17In support of this Deakin observed that;

However, the nineteenth-century authorities cited for control were not concernedwith the issue of tortious liability. One of the most widely cited cases, Yewens v.

Noakes, concerned the definition of a live-in servant under tax legislation. Nor didthis case turn on the distinction between employees and the self-employed, or

even between servants and independent contractors. Central to the decision was

the refusal of the court to believe that a salaried clerk earning a substantial salary

11These included the Employers Liability Act 1880, the Workmens Compensation Act 1897 andthe Workmens Compensation Act 1906.

12Le Roux, (n4), p.1713Ibid pp 17-1814(1951) ALL E.R 368 at 37115See also Walker v. Crystal Palace (1910) 1 KB 87; Yewens v. Noakes (1880) 6QD 530 at p 532

and Lane v. Shire Roofing Company (1995) IRLR 493 at 495.16Deakin, (n9), p. 30 citing Kahn-Freund, O. the personal scope of English labour law, servant, -employee, - workman Rivista di Diritto del Lavoro: 1966 508- 524 pp. 512-513.17Le Roux (n4), p. 18


5/22


55

could be a servant, since, according to the court, such a person was more clearlyakin to the manager of a bank, a foreman with high wages, persons in the positionalmost of gentlemen.

18

In the case ofWalker v. Crystal Palace;19

aprofessional footballer was held to have a

contract of service with the club. He was paid 3.50 pounds per week for a year

contract, in which he was supposed to provide his playing services exclusively toCrystal Palace Football Club. He was given detailed rules about training and under

whose direction he was during training. He was also expected to be available for

training and matches. The club argued that he did not have a contract of servicebecause, it asserted, it was essential that in such a relationship the master should have

the power to direct how work should be done. The case of Yewens v. Noakes20

was

cited where Bramwell J had defined a servant as a person subject to the command ofhis master as to the manner in which he shall do his work. It was argued that thisdefinition should not be applicable to a professional footballer who was hired todisplay their talents and skills. The control of the club is limited to deciding whether

the player is picked for the team or not.

Farewells J dismissed the argument on the basis that many workmen display their

own initiative, like footballer, but were still bound by the directions of their master.In this case the player had agreed to follow detailed training instructions and to obeyhis captains instructions on the field. He observed; I cannot doubt that he is bound

to obey any directions which the captain, as the delegate of the club, may give himduring the course of the game that is to say, any directions that is within the terms

of his employment as a football player.

Apart from the control test, it was found that there are situations where it wasdifficult to establish control by the employer hence the development ofintegration/organisation test as was in the case of Stevenson Jordans and Harrison

Ltd v. Macdonald And Evans,21

where Lord Justice Denning when distinguishingcontract of services and contract for service stated that in the contract of service a

man is employed as part of the business and his work is done as an integral part of

the business. The test of the workers integration into an organisation was used toexplain how professionals such as doctors and journalists could be classified asemployees notwithstanding the high degree of autonomy they enjoyed in their

work.22

The more a person is integrated into the organizational structure the morelikely to an employee and the less the integration the more likely the individual to be

18Deakin, (n9), p. 2919(1910) 1 KB 8720(1880) 6QD 530 p 53221[1952] 1 TLR 10122 Deakin, (n9), p. 32 citing Cassidy v. Minister of Health [1951] 2 KB 343; Roe v. Minister ofHealth [1954] 2 QB 66; Beloff v. Pressdram Ltd. [1973]] 2 All ER 241.


6/22

F.M.Temba

56

self employed23. The Decision by Denning above was approved by Lord Widgery CJinBeloff v.Pressdram Ltd,

24where he stated:

The test which emerges from the authorities seems to me, as Denning LJ said,whether on the one hand the employee is employed as part of the business and his

work is an integral part of the business, or whether his work is not integrated into the

business but is only accessory to it, or as Cooke J expressed it, the work is done byhim in business on his own account.

It is difficult to understand where the dividing line may be: for example, what of thedependent contractor? If a person is self-employed, but works continuously for one

organization, are they to be treated as integrated into the organization or not? Much

work is now the subject of outsourcing. To what extent, for example, is the cateringassistant who works for an outsourced company to be treated as an integrated part oforganization in which he or she is located?

25

The integration test seemed to be an attempt to cope with the difficulties posed by thegrowth of technical and skilled work which may not be the subject of close control

by an employer. Although it may be used as an indicator of a person under a contract

of service, it cannot be conclusive. Indeed the problem of this test and the control testis that they do not sufficiently distinguish between the employed and the self-employed. It is arguable that it is possible for workers without a contract of

employment to be closely integrated into an organization and closely controlled bythat organization. To some extent this has been recognized by the Court of Appeal in

Franks v. Reuters Ltd.26

In this case it was held that a person who had worked forReuters on a full-time permanent basis for more than four years on an assignment

from an employment agency could be an employee of Reuters. It is consistent withgeneral legal principles that dealings between parties over a period of years arecapable of generating an implied contractual relationship.

27

There were situations when courts were faced with cases in which they failed to

apply either of the two tests to solve them. This led to the formulation of multiple

test. The test is the combination of the control test and organisational test. LordWright in Young v. Montreal Locomotive Works

28 stated that in many cases the

question can only be settled by examining the whole of the various elements which

constitute the relationship between the parties. It looks on the surrounding features

23Sargeant, M., and Lewis, D., Employment Law, 4th edn, Pearson Education Limited, Essex,2008, p. 4324[1973] 1 All ER 24125Sergeant and Lewis, (n23), p. 4326[2003]1 RLR 42327Sergeant and Lewis, (n23), p. 4428[1974] 1 DLR 161 p.169


7/22


57

of the relationship between the parties including; the power of selection of employeeby the employer; the payment of wages by the employer; national insurance stamps;income tax; holiday monies and pensions; and the power to suspend and dismiss.

29In

the case of Ready Mixed Concrete v. Minister for Pensions and Insurance30

acontract between the plaintiff company and a lorry driver stated that the lorry driver

was self-employed. He owned, insured and maintained his own lorry, but the

plaintiffs had helped finance its purchase. He wore a uniform, and the lorry waspainted with the companys colours. He could delegate the driving and was paid per

mile driven. The issue arose as to whether he was an employee and whether the

plaintiffs should have been making pension contributions for him to the defendants.McKenna J stated that three conditions had to be fulfilled to establish a contract of

service: firstly, there must be an obligation of the person to provide his own skill and

work in return for a wage or other remuneration, secondly, there must be a sufficientdegree of control by the employer, and lastly, the other provisions of the contractmust not be inconsistent with its being a contract of service. The court found that theeconomic reality of the situation should also be considered when coming to a

decision. Having regard to all of the factors, the court concluded that the lorry driverwas an independent contractor.

InKirwan v. Dart Industries and Leahy(1980), the Employment Appeals Tribunalapplied the multiple test and set out a number of criteria to consider including; theextent of control over the task, the manner in which it is carried out, the means used

to carry it out and where it is to be carried out; whether the person was in business ofhis own account or whether he was an integral part of the business; whether the

person was required to provide personal service or whether he could delegate the joband finally whether the person was free to work for other employers.

The factors to be considered to establish the existence of the contract of employmentas developed by common law courts are also evident in the development of contract

of employment in Tanzania. Addressing the issue under the old labour laws the HighCourt in the case of Director of Public Prosecution v. Eliatosha Moshi &

Another31

had an opportunity to consider the factors for determination of contract of

employment as stated in the English cases. In ascertaining whether there was thecontract of employment between parties to the dispute before the court Mushi Jstated:

The agreement between the complainant and the respondents did not amount to acontract of service between employer and employee. There was certainly an

agreement between the complainant and the respondent. What sort of an agreement

29Sikalumba A.J., Legal Aspects of Employment Contracts and Dispute Settlement Schemes in

TanzaniaResearch and Publication Department, Mzumbe, 2003 p. 430(1968) 2 QB 49731[1983] TLR 146 at 151, See also Director of Public Prosecutions v. Eliatosha Mosha and another(1984) TLR 28 (CA) which upheld the decision of the High Court.


8/22

F.M.Temba

58

was it? Was it an agreement for the complainant to render service on one part and therespondents to pay specific amount on the other part? The complainant told the courtthat the respondent employed him at an agreed monthly wage. The trial magistrate

found this allegation to be false but found that he was paid commission of Shs. 20/=per each Shs. 100/= earned. How was the work being done? There was evidence

which was believed by the court to the effect that the complainant was given the taxi

which he kept at his home. The way I understand this is that the respondents gave thetaxi to the complainant to go and use it and whatever income he gets by carrying

passengers on hire he should deduct Shs. 20/= for each Shs. 100/=. Put it in a

different way one can say that the complainant was hiring the vehicle from therespondents for use at Shs. 80/= per each Shs. 100/= he gets. How the complainant

was to do the work was to be decided by himself. If the complainant did not work

and thus earned nothing, he could not go to the respondents and say - look, youfellow I have done my work can I have my wage or salary? To the contrary if thecomplainant did not remit anything for a day, the respondents could ask - Look youfellow what is happening? Are you not using the taxi? If you do not want money you

had better give it back to me and I shall give it to someone else. The complainant wasworking independently and was, I think, using the vehicle as if it was his own. Under

these circumstances, the complainant could not be said to have been a workman for

the respondents and he was not in contract of service with the respondents but he wason an agreement for hire and used the taxi of the respondents and sharing theproceeds on 80/20 per cent basis.

In another case of Janeth Febbs v. TBC,32

the court found that the applicant was not

the employee as she was never recruited and/or employed nor there was any contractof employment entered between the parties. As on the presumption to an employee as

per section 61 of the LIA the court found that there was no evidence to show that shewas working under direct control of the respondent or part of the organisation. thecourt went on to state that to qualify under that section, the applicant ought to have

showed things like terms of work, attendance register, monthly salary, schedule ofwork etc. The applicant used her own equipment of work i.e. the camera she used

was hers thus she could not be presumed as an employee as per section 61 of the

LIA.

The legislative development in contract of employment in TanzaniaThe evolution of contract of employment in Tanganyika cannot be traced beyond thecolonization of the territory by the Germans since the lack of documentary sources

has proved to be a significant barrier. However, a note has to be taken that, prior tocolonization means of labour production and control ranged from chattel slavery to

pawnship, corvees, various kinds of patronclient relations, bride service, cooperative

32 Labour Revision No 287 of 2008 High Court of Tanzania Labour Division Dar es Salaam,(Unreported).


9/22


59

labour, and also, in more and more contexts over time, wage labour.' 33Slavery, ofcourse, has received the attention of many scholars, as have some of the othercategories.

34

On the basis of the background information provided above, after colonization of

Tanganyika, State through legislation created a framework for recruitment of

labour.35

The Germans begun by creating Wage Labour and enacted the House andPoll Tax Ordinance 1912. What is apparent from a careful following the position of

colonialists in Tanganyika was that, taxes were used as a means of forcing Africans

to enter into wage labour. After the Germany rule in Tanganyika which followed itsdefeat in the First World War 1914 1918, Tanganyika was declared a mandate

territory in the Treaty of Versailles of 1919 and was put under the British rule.

British laws were received in Tanganyika under the Tanganyika Order in Council,1920 (22 July, 1920) in which we received English common law, doctrines of equityand statutes of general application in its article 17 (2) [the reception clause].

36In this

regard like its predecessor British enacted legislations such as the Hut and Poll Tax

Ordinance No. 13 of 1922 together with Involuntary Servitude (Abolition)Ordinance, No. 13 and House Tax Ordinance, No. 26 both of the same year, whose

main purpose was to create taxation which in turn forced the Africans to work in

order to get money to pay taxes. In 1923 the Master and Native Servants OrdinanceNo 32 (Cap. 78 of 1923) was enacted. Its main purpose was to facilitate and regulatethe procurement of labour for capital and repatriation. Section 5 of the Ordinance

made it mandatory for employers to pay wages in cash only. The Native AuthorityOrdinance 1926 legalised the communal labour tribal turnouts and the tax

33Rockel, S., Relocating Labor: Sources from the Nineteenth Century, History in Africa, 1995

Vol. 22, p. 44734Ibid.35United Republic of Tanzania: Law Reform Commission of Tanzania, Report on the labour law

presented to the Minister for Justice and Constitutional Affairs, Ministry of Justice and

Constitutional Affairs Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, 2001 p. 7. The report was prepared after thereference made, in writing, by the then Honourable Minister for Justice and Attorney General tothe Law Reform Commission of Tanzania on the 13th day of May 1986 under section 8 of the LawReform Commission of Tanzania Act, No. 11 of 1980 to report upon, whether the Permanent

Labour Tribunal Act, 1967 after taking into account s.27 (1) of the Act on making awards of theTribunal final and binding, adequately protects employees or employers from possible no

jurisdictional errors committed by the Tribunal in making an award or deciding on matters referredto it; whether the Permanent Labour Tribunal Act 1967 has adequately served the purposes it was

intended to serve; and If the answers to (1) and (2) is no, whether any and what measures could beadopted by way of legislation or otherwise to achieve those objectives.36 After Independence the reception clause was firstly retained under section 2(2) of theJudicature and Application of Laws Ordinance, 1961 Cap 453 and later section 2 (3) of the

Judicature and Application of Laws Act, (Cap 358 R.E 2002) which was so renamed after cominginto force of the Revised Edition of 2002 which was prepared under the authority of the LawsRevision Act (Act No. 7 of 1994). The Revised Edition of 2002 was made operative retrospectivelyby Government Notice No. 124 published on 06/05/2005.


10/22

F.M.Temba

60

defaulters. The Master and Native Servants (Written Contracts) Ordinance No. 28of 1942 (Cap 79) came into force on 18/12/1942. It made it obligatory for certaintypes of contracts involving natives to be reduced into writing. The Master and

Native Servants (Recruitment) Ordinance, No. 6 of 1946 (Cap 80) came into force on15/3/1946. This Ordinance made provisions for licensing of recruiters who were

divided into two categories: private recruiters and professional recruiters. Section

2 defined recruiting as:

any operations undertaken with the object of obtaining or supplying the labour of

natives who do not spontaneously offer their services at the places of employment, orat an office established by Government, or by an employers organisation with the

approval of the Labour Commissioner for the purpose of receiving applications for

employment, and recruit, recruiter and recruitment have correspondingmeanings.

Another legislation which was enacted by the British was the colonial Labour

Utilisation Ordinance, 1947 Cap 243. The 1947 Ordinance was passed at the heightof labour crisis which continued after the second imperialist world War of 1939

1945. The Ordinance set up labour utilization boards in an effort to secure the

employment of the available resources of native labour in the interest of the colonialenterprises.

37It would seem that the distinguishing features of the legislation which

were passed by the Germans and British were the element of involuntariness on the

part of the native servant. During British colonial period the country experienced aBritish colonial legal system whose labour legislation was predominantly punitive.

38

The notion of freedom of contract was jettisoned and in its place a quasi-penalregime was introduced. As Jack Woddis puts it: the history of African relations with

the West has been a history of robbery, robbery of African manpower, its mineralsand its agricultural resources, and its land.

39

A spectacular change occurred in 1950s with the enactment of the EmploymentOrdinance Cap 366 of the Laws of Tanganyika in 1955 which came into force in

1957. The Ordinance recognised that the contract of employment is a voluntary

agreement between theemployer and the employee. The Ordinance was later referredto as the Employment Act (Cap 366 R.E 2002). The Act was essentially enacted todeal with; rights of employees on any obligation in the contract of employment, or in

any matter involving non-fulfilment of the terms of the contract of service, orwhenever any difference arises in the interpretation of those terms or touching on the

conduct of the employer or employee, may report the matter to the labour officer.40

37Kapinga, W.B.L., State control of the working class through legislationin Shivji, I.G.,(editor)

the State and the working people in Tanzania, CODESRIA, Dakar, 1986 p. 8738Ibid.39Woddis, J., The Roots of Revolt, Lawrence and Wishart, London, 1960 p. 140Employment Act, s. 139


11/22


61

The Employment Act which dealt with all matters pertaining to contract ofemployment provided a wide scope of protection to employees. Under the Actemployee was defined as any person who has entered into or works under a contract

of service with an employer whether by way of manual labour, clerical work, orotherwise and whether the contract is expressed or implied or is oral or in writing.

41

The contract of service meant any contract, whether in writing or oral, whether

expressed or implied, to employ or to service as an employee for any period of timeor number of days to be worked, or to execute any task or piece work or to perform

any journey and includes a foreign contract of service.42

The existence of contract of

service was ascertained by applying common law tests as developed in the UKcourts.

Also, the long title of the Employment Act stated the purpose of the law as to amendand consolidate the Law relating to Labour and regulate conditions of employmentfor Employers and Employees. This Law governed all agreements of employment.Section 13 of the Act was to the effect that no person shall employ any employee and

no employee shall be employed under any contract of service except in accordancewith the provisions of this Act. In this respect therefore this Law became the most

basic law as far as employment and all its dynamics are concerned. Terms and

conditions of employment were stipulated in this law. Furthermore section 16 (1)stated that contracts of service may be oral or written contracts. The details of thesetwo aspects were dealt with more exhaustively in Part IV and Part V of the Act.

43

The legal basis of employment relationship

The primary legal basis of an employment relationship is a contract of employment

despite the fact that the rules regulating the employment relationship are derivedfrom mainly three sources, namely the common law, labour legislation and collectivebargaining.

44 The common law contract of employment remains the basis of the

employment relationship in the sense that the legal relationship between theemployer and the employee is created by it.

45 Under the common law of

employment, no formalities are required to bring an employment relationship into

being.46

The contract of employment can simply be implied by prevailing practice or,

41Ibid, s. 242Ibid, s. 2

43 Oral contract of service was covered under sections 34 and 40 while the written contract ofemployment was covered under section 47 of the Employment Act.44Coaker, J. F., and Zeffertt, D. T., (eds) Wille & Millins Mercantile Law of South Africa 18thedition, 1984 p. 34045Grogan, J., Riekerts Basic Employment Law, Cape Town, 2ndedition, 1993, pp. 2-3.46 Brown, W., et al, The employment contract: from collective procedures to individual rights,ESRC Center for Business Research, University of Cambridge Working Paper No. 171, September2000, p. 12 (Available on http:/http://www.cbr.cam.ac.uk/pdf/wp171.pdf accessed 18/08/2013)
http://www.cbr.cam.ac.uk/pdf/wp171.pdf%20accessed%2018/08/2013http://www.cbr.cam.ac.uk/pdf/wp171.pdf%20accessed%2018/08/2013


12/22

F.M.Temba

62

if it is to be made explicit, this can be done either in writing or orally.47The nature ofemployment relationship is a complex and multifaceted social relationship; its formsare protean, and its existence must be viewed by a process whose application goes

unremarked in most other branches of the law, the process of assessing all therelevant facts.

48 Labour law scholars, however, have defined contract of

employment as an agreement in terms of which one party (the employee) agrees to

make his personal services available to the other party (the employer) under thelatters supervision and authority in return for remuneration.

49

It is nonetheless, noticeable that, appointment and dismissal of employees aredetermined by the conditions created by the fixed regulation usually offered by

legislation. Thus, Legislation has superimposed a growing set of duties upon the

employer to provide the employee with written information on certain specifiedterms of contract and certain specified duties.

50 This legislative intervention is

evident even in Tanzania where the employee should be given the written statementof particulars.

51 If the employee does not understand the particulars of the written

statement of particulars it is the duty of the employer to make sure that they areexplained to the employee in the manner in which the employee understands.

52

Where there are changes of the written statement of particulars there should be the

consultation between the employer and the employee to revise the written particularsto reflect the change and to notify the employee in writing the changes.

53In case the

contract between the employer and the employee is terminated the law puts it clear

that it is the duty of the employer to keep the record of written statement ofparticulars for five years after the termination of the contract of employment.

54The

duty is for the purpose of using the particulars as evidence in case there is the casebetween the employee and the employer. If there is a legal proceedings and the

employer fails to produce the written statements of particulars as prescribed undersection 15 (1) the burden of proving or disproving an alleged term of employmentstipulated under section 15 (1) lies on the employer. If the factors introduced are

valid indicators of an employment relationship, they must hold for employment

47Ibid.48Brassey, M., The nature of employment ILJ 1990, Vol. 11 p. 920.49 Du Plessis, J.V., and Fouche, M., A Practical Guide to Labour Law 2nd edition LexisNexis,Durban, 1996, p. 7.50Brown, (n46), p. 1251Section 15 (1) of the Employment and Labour Relations Act, 2004 requires the employer to

supply to an employee the written statement of particulars in writing when commencingemployment. The written statement of particulars include; name, age, permanent address and sex ofthe employee; place of recruitment; job description; date of commencement; form and duration ofthe contract; place of work; hours of work; remuneration, the methods of its calculation, and details

of any benefits or payment in kind; and any other prescribed matter.52Employment and Labour relations Act, s. 15 (2) and (3).53Ibid, s. 15 (4).54Ibid, s. 15 (5).


13/22


63

relationship of any kind.55Besides, the employer is supposed to keep the record asper section 96 of the ELRA 2004. These records includes the records of anyremunerations paid to the employee and written particulars referred under section 15

(1) of the ELRA.

Apart from the protection given to employees under the contract of employment in

Tanzania related to the supply of written statement of particulars, the ELRA and theLIA provide for other statutory provisions which protect the employee at work. They

include provisions relating to prohibition of discrimination at work;56

provisions

which provides for the right of employees at work;57

right of trade unions;recognition of trade union;

58payment of wages and remunerations as stated in the

contract of employment;59

protection against unfair termination of employment;60

regulation of termination of employment by operational requirements;61

right oflawful strikes;

62 the right to be informed of the minimum wage rates

63 in force by

posting notices at the workplace or by any other more effective means; and otherprotections such as those provided for under the Workers Compensation Act, 2008

including social security to employees by way of insurance.

Statutory regulation has been regarded as complementary instead of displacing to the

status of the individual contract of employment.64

It has been suggested that althoughthe impact of statute in employment has increased dramatically, there areundoubtedly areas where common law remains important, most notably contractual

55Kalula E., et al, Labour Law Reforms that Support Decent Work: The Case of Southern Africa,ILO Sub-Regional Office for Southern Africa: Harare, Zimbabwe, Issues Paper No 28,

International Labour Organization 2008 p. 8 (available onhttp://www.ilo.org/public/english/region/afpro/harare/download/issues_paper_28.pdf accessed18/08/2013).56Section 7 of the ELRA prohibits all forms of discrimination at work while section 8 of the same

Act prohibits discrimination at trade unions.57Employment and Labour Relations Act, s.9 provides for the right of employee to form and jointrade unions.58Ibid, s. 67 (1).59Ibid, s. 27and the Labour Institutions Act, s. 41 (3).60Employment and Labour Relations Act, s. 37.61Ibid, s. 38.62Ibid, Part VII especially sections 75, 76, 77 and 78.

63 Minimum wage rate is set by the Minister by making the a Wage Order determining theminimum wage and other conditions of employment of employees in any sector and area ofeconomy after considering the recommendations of the Wage Board appointed under section 35 ofthe LIA . The Wage Order is made as per section 39 of the LIA by notice in the Gazette and with

effect from the date specified in the Gazette.64Van Jaarsveld, M. I., Contract in Employment: Weathering Storms in Mixed Jurisdictions? SomeComparative Thoughts Electronic Journal of Comparative Law, May 2008, Vol. 12. No. 1 p. 22(available on http://www.ejcl.org/121/art121-26.pdf accessed 24/07/2013).
http://www.ilo.org/public/english/region/afpro/harare/download/issues_paper_28.pdfhttp://www.ilo.org/public/english/region/afpro/harare/download/issues_paper_28.pdf


14/22


15/22


65

section 98 (3) of the ELRA.1Section 98(3) empowers the minister for labour afterconsultation with the labour, economic and social council established under section 3of the LIA, by notice in the gazette deem any category of persons to be employees.

International Labour Organisation describes an employee in consideration of the

distinctive dichotomy which exists around the phrase itself and categorise it

primarily on two premises; i.e. employee with stable contract and regular employees.Employees are all those who hold the type of job defined as paid employment jobs.

Employees with stable contracts are those employees who have had, and continue to

have an explicit written or oral or implicit contract of employment or a succession ofsuch contracts with the same employer on a continuous basis which notion implies

a period of employment which is no longer than a specified minimum period

determined according to national circumstances. Regular employees are thoseemployees with the stable contracts for whom the employing organisation isresponsible for payment of taxes and social security contributions and where thecontractual relationship is subject to national legislation.

70

It is ones considered view that attempts made by all the legislative provisions in

providing a succinct definition of an employee streams unanimously in the same

direction and demonstrate the sentiment of achieving one common comprehension onthe notion of employee. Whilst, it should be noted that the ELRA and all otherlegislations vary slightly in construction of words when defining an employee,

however, a fact worth mentioned is that the form of expression does not mattermuch; instead what matters is the content and objective that the legislation seeks to

achieve. It has tacitly been agreed upon in those provisions that a person has to workor be working for another person or state and receive remuneration or entitled to

receive any remuneration and/or assist another person in carrying of business, forthat individual to basically meet the requisite of being an employee, as stated inELRA

71 and other statutory provisions for purposes of getting protection from the

labour laws, resulting from unfair dismissals, discrimination, and so forth. It istherefore concluded that the ELRA and ILO assent on common basis and conclusion

in as far as defining employee is concerned.

This article further submits that, the definitions of employee in labour statutes indifferent jurisdictions are open to an expansive interpretation, but the courts have

preferred to interpret them conservatively.72

Nonetheless, it is also worth noting that,in determining whether the parties are employer and employee the courts are

70International Labour Organisation (ILO) Resolutions concerning International classification ofstatus in employment Adopted by the 15thInternational Conference of labour statisticians; January

1993, para 871Employment and Labour Relations Act, s. 4.72Benjamin P., An Accident of History: Who Is (and Who Should Be) an Employee under SouthAfrican Labour Law, ILJ 2004 Vol. 25 p.787


16/22

F.M.Temba

66

increasingly less concerned with finding a valid contract between the parties asopposed to discerning an employment relationship and an example in this regard istaken from Rumbles v Kwa Bat Marketing (Pty) Ltd.

73In this case the court stated

that what is required in determining whether a worker is an employee is aconspectus of all the relevant facts including any contractual terms, and a

determination whether these holistically viewed establish a relationship of

employment as contemplated by the statutory definition.74

Taking into account on the position of the definitions of employee and a worker it is

clear that the law excludes the independent contractor from the definition of anemployee.

75 The courts have stated that the contract between the parties is the

primary source from which to establish the nature of the parties' work relationship.76

There are situations when workers may be considered as employees in the absence ofthe contract as was in the case of NUCCAWU v Transnet Ltd t/a Portnet.

77 In this

case, the workers in question were members of the workforce pool and have the rightto be considered for employment on a day-to-day basis. In addition the respondent

(employer) stated that when there is a need to employ extra staff for its day-to-dayrequirements, it would employ from the pool it created. The employer sought to

introduce new agreements in terms of which the workers in the pool would be

employed for the full week, Mondays to Sundays, but for a fixed term of threemonths, the proposal which was refused by the workers in the pool hence they werenot considered for the employment. The court was satisfied that the workers were

employees within the definition contained in the LRA.78

73(2003) 24 ILJ 1587 (LC) at 159274Christie S & Bosch C, Are sex workers employees ILJ Vol. 28. No.4 p. 80875 The courts have, however, held that independent contractors are also excluded from thedefinition. See Craig Bosch, (n67), p. 1354.76See, Church of the Province of Southern Africa Diocese of Cape Town v CCMA & others (2001)

22 ILJ 2274 (LC); Salvation Army (South African Territory) v Minister of Labour [2004] 12 BLLR1264 (LC). See also Smith v Workmen's Compensation Commissioner at 64; Liberty Life

Association of Africa Ltd v Niselow at 683; Niselow v Liberty Life Association of Africa Ltd(1998) 19 ILJ 752 (SCA) at 754; SA Broadcasting Corporation v McKenzie at 591 and Hood and

Association for Retired Persons & Pensioners (2004) 25 IL] 1111 (CCMA) at 1113. (cited fromBosch, (n67), p. 1355). For example, in Church of the Province of Southern Africa Diocese of CapeTown v CCMA & others the LC held that an Anglican priest could not be regarded as an employee because the parties had never intended there to be a civilly enforceable contract between them.

Rather, their relationship wasintended to be regulated by the laws governing the Anglican Church.77(2000) 21ILJ 2288 (LC).78 One has to take into account that the LRA of the Republic of South Africa definition ofemployee the streams into the same direction as the ELRA.


17/22


67

The changing face of contract of employment

Despite the fact that contract of employment has striven to regulate and protect

workers rights at the place of work, certain trends have in recent years been causedby the social-economic developments in international standards which in turn,

influenced the role of the employment contract at all national levels.79

Much of the

focus of recent debates has been on the protection of the employee-likethosewhose employment conditions defy the conceptual tools of traditional labour law.

80

This is because labour laws are concerned with the regulation of formal labour

markets to the exclusion of irregular workers, particularly those in the informalsector.

81It is acknowledgeable that all attempts at working out a legal definition of

the informal economy have so far been unsuccessful. The only certainty, as observed

by the Director-General of the ILO, about the informal sector is that it exists.82

Thesame is said to have, not only given legal recognition, but it is also much debatedwhether the informal sector should be legalized or left in a laissez-faire limbo.

83In

spite of the increasing size of the informal sector and the rise of atypical workers, the

focus of emerging new systems of labour market regulation remains the formalemployment sector.

84Most informal economy workers are in fact excluded from the

scope of labour law, because law enforcement is minimal or even non-existent in the

informal economy.85

Workers in the informal economy are among the weakest andmost vulnerable groups of workers. Most of them have a very low income, their jobsare unstable and their conditions of work are precarious.

86 In one decision the

changing world of employment was acknowledged by an observation that the courtmust be mindful of trends leading to the progressive deregulation of the labour

market, the privatisation of public services, and the globalisation of product andfinancial markets.87

79Van Jaarsveld, (n64), p. 3.80Benjamin, P., Beyond the Boundaries: Prospects for Expanding Labour Market Regulation in

South Africa, in Guy Davidov and Brian Langille (eds) Boundaries and Frontiers of LabourLaw:Goals and Means in the Regulation of Work,Hart Publishing, Portland, 2006, p. 18281 Kalula, E., Beyond Borrowing and Bending: Labour Market Regulation and Labour Law inSouthern Africa in Barnard, C., Deakin, S., and Morris, G.S., (eds) The Future of Labour Law:

Liber Amicorum Sir Bob Hepple QC(Hart, Oxford, 2004), 275 p. 28782 ILO, The dilemma of the informal sector, Report of the Director-General, International Labour

Conference, 78th Session, Geneva, 1991, p. 4.83 Bronstein, A., International and Comparative Labour Law: Current challenges, International

Labour Organization, 2009 p. 3184Benjamin, (n77), p 188; Kalula, (n78), p. 287.85Bronstein, (n80), p. 3186Ibid p. 3087Lord Steyn inJohnson v Unisys Ltd [2001] IRLR 279 (HL) 283 par 19. See also Jamodien C inBennett and Mondipak (2004) 25 ILJ (SA) 583 (CCMA) 590J-591A who stated that thecharacteristics of modern work environments, example increased competition in markets, newmodes of working and elements of rapid change, impact on current employment relationships.


18/22

F.M.Temba

68

These changes have led to informalisation and externalization of labour force.88Theimpacts of externalization and casualisation to the labour economy has beensummarized by Jan Theron that;

One consequence of casualization and externalization is that the numbers protectedby labour legislation has substantially diminished. Those who are protected can be

viewed as insiders in a position of relative privilege. Those outside the ambit of

the legislation comprise unprotected employees (such as casual workers, or workersin the employ of a broker or satellite enterprise) or those nominally independent

persons who are in fact in a relationship of economic dependence (the so-called

dependent contractor). Accordingly, there is a growing number of persons whocannot meaningfully be called employees, or if they are employees, cannot

effectively avail themselves of the rights available to employees. By the same token,

they cannot meaningfully be called independent contractors because they are not inany real sense independent.

89

The import of this changing dimension of contract of employment is that the

protection of workers rights by the contract of employment is far to be reached dueto the fact that taking into consideration of the employee covered under the contract

of employment without ambiguity, only the group of workers within formal

employment has adequate protection. Whilst some labour law commentators arguethat the contract of employment is still in its infancy and needs to be given time todevelop, others regard it as incapable of regulating the modern employment

relationship properly.90

From these differing views on the nature of contract ofemployment, focusing it from the standpoint of the globalised economy is a

necessary antidote to the problems facing workers in the contemporary employmentrelationship. The effective extension of protection of workers in the informal

economy must be informed by an appreciation of the diversity of forms of workwithin the contemporary labour market.

91 Workers employed through triangular

arrangements (that is to say, three-dimensional work relationships) or in outsourced

work; workers employed by informal businesses; self-employed workers anddependent contractors employed within the formal sector protection is far from

88For detailed discussion on informalisation, externalization and causualisation see Colin Fenwick,et al, Labour Law: A Southern Africa Perspective, International Labour Organization(International Institute for Labour Studies) 2007 Geneva, pp. 18 - 22 (Available athttp://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---dgreports/---inst/documents accessed 21/07/2013);89Theron, J., Employment is not what it used to be I LJ 2003, Vol. 24 p. 1271.90Rycroft,A. J., and Jordaan,B., A guide to South African labour law, 2 ndedition, JUTA, CapeTown, 1992 p. 1.91Kalula, et al, (n55), p. 9.
http://www.google.co.tz/search?tbo=p&tbm=bks&q=inauthor:%22A.+J.+Rycroft%22http://www.google.co.tz/search?tbo=p&tbm=bks&q=inauthor:%22Barney+Jordaan%22http://www.google.co.tz/search?tbo=p&tbm=bks&q=inauthor:%22Barney+Jordaan%22http://www.google.co.tz/search?tbo=p&tbm=bks&q=inauthor:%22A.+J.+Rycroft%22


19/22


69

reach.92Labour legislation ought to provide remedies to workers who are vulnerableand therefore in need of protection.

93

Proving the existence of contract of employment in terms of the ELRA is ademanding task owing to the complex nature of the work environment and the

intricacies surrounding the agreements entered into by the parties and deregulation of

the labour market. Legislative recognition of that appears in the rebuttablepresumption in the Labour Institutions Act. Section 61 of Act No 7 of 2004, provides

that: for the purpose of labour law; a person who works for, or lenders services to

any other person is presumed, until the contrary is proved, to be an employee,regardless of the form of the contract, if any one or more of the following factors

listed in paragraph (a) to (g) is/are present; that, the manner in which the person

works is subject to the control or direction of another person; the persons hours ofwork are subject to the control or direction of another person; in case of a personwho works for an organization, a person is a part of that organization; a parson hasworked for that other person for an average of at least 45 hours per month over the

past three months; the person is economically dependent on the other person forwhom that person works or renders services; the person is provided with tools of

trade or work equipment by the other person; and the person only works or renders

services to one person.

The few decisions available on the issue, however, suggest that the presumption of

employee under section 61 of Act No 7 of 2004 assists in the determination of theexistence of the contract of employment. The cases of Janeth Febbs v. TBC (supra)

and Director Usafirishaji Africa v. Hamisi Mwakabala and 25 others94

haveinterpreted the provisions of section 61 of the Act. In the latter case, for instance, the

respondents were employed by the applicant to loading and off-loading cement fromtrain wagon. Their employment was terminated. They filed application before CMAclaiming for terminal benefits. The key contentious issue at the CMA was whether

the respondents were employee in terms of the labour laws. The arbitrator found therespondents employees as per section 14 of the ELRA and presumed employee under

section 61 of the labour Institution Act. The applicant were aggrieved by the decision

of the arbitrator thus applied for the revision to the High Court claiming that therespondents were employed for specific tasks, and were not part of the applicantspayroll; that payment based on tasks performed i.e. the amount of bags loaded and

unloaded and were not on 12 months continuous service. In reply to this averment

92 For detailed on Triangular employment see Bartkiw T. J., Labour Law and TriangularEmployment Growth, Paper for presentation at the inaugural Labour Law Research NetworkConference, Pompeu Fabra University, Barcelona, Spain, June 13-15, 201393Bosch, (n67) p. 1357 citing Du Toit, et al, Labour Relations Law: A Comprehensive Guide, 4thedition, LexisNexis/Butterworths, Durban, 2003, p. 72.94 Labour Revision No 291 of 2009 High Court of Tanzania Labour Division at Dar es Salaam(Unreported


20/22

F.M.Temba

70

the respondent stated that they were employees as per section 14 paragraph (a) and(c) of the ELRA. They further stated that they were employed to loading and off-loading cement from train wagon, and the nature of their engagement amounts to

employment in terms of section 61 (a) (c) (e) & (f) of the Labour Institution Act.They worked for an average of 45 hours for more than 3 months and were provided

with working equipments being protection equipments and gate passes. Having

considered the facts of the case the court found the respondents employees as persection 61 (a), (d) to (f) of the labour Institutions Act.

The presumption was promulgated in order to protect vulnerable employees whoenjoyed little or no protection under the sanctity of contract.

95It was introduced as a

response to a widespread practice of disguised employment96

in terms of which

employees were converted into independent contractors by contractual stipulationsto avoid labour legislation.

97The importance of this presumption is that it does not

assume that only a common-law contract of employment serves to establish anemployment relationship.

98While it is open to rebuttal, the presumption also informs

the nature of the relationship that qualifies for protection.99

Nevertheless, the pointhas been made that problems that the presumption sought to address in respect of

disguised employment were largely problems of enforcement, and that the state had

not simultaneously committed greater resources to enforcing existing laws.100

On thesame footing, it is felt that, by introducing an earning threshold to the category ofworkers covered, and by making the presumption rebuttable by the employer, the

presumption was divested of much of its usefulness to the worker.101

Thus, despitepresumption, the issue of protection of workers still depends on enforcement. Many

of the most marginal workers such as home workers are now covered under theexisting definitions in section 61 of the LIA. Therefore presumption will do no more

than distract attention from the same old failures if enforcement remains inadequateand under resourced.

102

95 Tamara Cohen Placing substance over form Identifying the true parties to an employmentrelationship ILJ 2008, Vol. 29 863 p. 878; Le Roux, R., the meaning of worker and the road

towards diversification: reflecting on discovery, SITA and Kylie,ILJ, January 2009, Vol. 30, pp.52-5396 The International Labour Organization describes disguised employment as an employmentrelationship that is lent an appearance that is other than the underlying reality. (Source: ILO, the

Scope of the Employment Relationship, Geneva, 2003 p. 24).97Benjamin, (n80) p. 191.98Le Roux, R., The Worker: Towards Labour Laws New VocabularySALJ 2007, Vol.124, p. 47099Ibid.100 Godfrey, S., and Clarke, M., The Basic Conditions of Employment Act Amendments: MoreQuestions than Answers Law, Democracy and Development, 2002, Vol. 6, p. 1.101Kalula, et al, (n55), p. 8102Benjamin, (n80), p. 192


21/22


71

Concluding remarks

This article submits that in establishing employment relationship in Tanzania,

contract of employment remains to be a key factor. The enacted laws further statesthat there should be employer and employee for existence of contract of employment.

Courts have developed tests in ascertaining the existence of employment

relationship. The study shows that courts do not look at one single factor but insteadtake a multiple approach, weighing up all the factors for and against a contract of

employment and determines on which side the scales will settle. However, despite

the evolution of a number of tests to be used to determine the existence of a contractof employment, the changing face of the relationship of the parties in employment

have made the determination of contract of employment to be more difficult. The

changing of globalised economy has ultimately rendered employment relation tochange to disguised employment. Disguised employment has become a significantreality in the Tanzania labour market.

103This is evident particularly in the context of

changing dimension of employee such as agency workers, zero-hours contract

workers and casual workers, free-lancers, consultants, on call workers, outworkers orhomeworkers, gang workers, contract workers, and agency temps.

104 Hence,

personal work contracts are conceived of as a large group or family of contracts,

some of which fall into the subcategory of contracts of employment while others donot.

105The change does not end into employee or worker dimension the same is the

case on employers or employing agencies dimension which has resulted to the

presence of intermediary employing enterprise i.e. employment agencies, labourbrokers and corporations involved in outsourcing.

That, in the absence of the contract of employment between parties many workers in

working places are not protected by labour laws. For instance in the case of James vLondon Borough of Greenwich,

106 it was held that, in many cases agency workers

will fall outside the scope of the protection of the 1996 Act because neither the

workers nor the end users were in any kind of express contractual relationship witheach other and it is not necessary to imply one in order to explain the work

undertaken by the worker for the end user. This trend has made Tanzania labour

statutes to provide for the provisions which presumed who is an employee. The useof presumption and the common law tests as developed in the UK courts inascertaining who is an employee only comes into existence at the time of the dispute

between the employer and the presumed employee. It means that these workers workfor another without guarantee of their rights such as the right against unfair dismissal,

statutory minimum notice, written particulars of statement and disciplinary and

103Benjamin (n72), p. 794104Freedland, M., From the Contract of Employment to the Personal Work Nexus, Industrial LawJournal, March 2006 Vol. 35, No. 1, p 9105Ibid p.7.106[2008] IRLR 302, CA.


22/22

F.M.Temba

72

grievance procedures. It is from this observation the article concludes that; thecontract of employment in Tanzania which owes its evolution from the UK law, haschanged and many workers are in the informal sector. The protection provided for by

the employment contract, though may look attractive; the situation on the ground isdifferent. In Tanzania the situation is even worse; since, after independence in, 1961

the country has never experienced the rising of formal employment above 10 percent.

The last recorded report of the government in 2003 [The National Social SecurityPolicy 2003] showed that only 5.4 of the population were employed in the formal

sector. The remaining were unemployed, underemployed and working in informal

forms of employment. The law purporting to protect workers at working place shouldtake into account the socio-economic situation taking place in the country which has made the working class to fall in the hands of informal employment.

the evolution and the changing face in contract of employment in tanzania

Documents