Kabla ya kuanzishwa kwa THTU, Chuo Kikuu cha Dodoma, kulikuwa na chama kimoja tu cha wafanyakazi RAAWU, ambacho hata hivyo kilikuwa na wanachama wachache sana na sehemu kubwa ikiwa ni wafanyakazi waendeshaji. Wanataaluma wakiwa hawafiki hata watano, na timu nzima ya Uongozi ikiwa imejaa administrators. In short ilikuwa imeelemea upande mmoja zaidi. Lakini pia viongozi wake walishindwa kabisa kusaidia wafanyakazi kutatua matatizo yao kwa wakati, hali hii ilijidhihirisha pale ambapo UDOMASA, ililazimika kufanya kazi kama Trade Union, ambayo kimsingi haikustahili.
Ilipoanzishwa THTU, mwezi February wanachama zaidi ya 100 walijiunga. Kikiwa na uwiano mkubwa sana wa wafanyakazi wandeshaji. Hata safu ya uongozi, nusu wakiwa wanataaluma na nusu wafanyakazi waendeshaji. Mwezi wa Marchi tuliomba rasmi tawi kufunguliwa, na tukakubaliwa tukiwa na wanachama zaidi ya 150, wanachama ambao RAAWU, ilikuwa haijafikia na mpaka leo hii bado haijafikia.
Mnamo mwezi May, tuliomba THTU, itambuliwe kama Mwakilishi wa wafanyakazi, tulijaza form kwa ajili ya Exclusive Bargaining Right, na tukakabidhi utawala. Kwa mujibu wa sheria za kazi ilitakiwa tuwe tumejibiwa ndani ya siku 30. VC alitushauri tuondoe suala la muda. Tufanye majadiliano, kwa sababu chuo kwanza ni kichanga, pili ni mara ya kwanza taasisi inakuwa na chama zaidi ya kimoja, Ushauri ambao tuliupokea bila shaka yoyote, nia yetu ikiwa ni kujenga.
Suala hili tangu hapo, limekuwa likipigwa danadana, na hata sasa limechukua miezi minne, bila mafanikio. Mnamo 19 August 2011, tulifanya mkutano na ofisi ya STC, kwa ajili ya kuhesabu wanachama RAAWU walikwa na wanachama 139 tu, wakijumuisha na wanachama ambao walishajitoa, na THTU ilikuwa na wanachama 255. Cha kushangaza baada ya mwezi , yaani 19 Septemba, tukaitwa tena, tukahesabu wanachama kwa ajili majina yamejirudia. Tukatumia busara tukaenda kikao ambacho Mwenyekiti wa RAAWU, hakutokea, akamtuma Katibu wake nae hakutokea. Na hata walipopatikana wajumbe wawili wa kamati yao ya utendaji na mwanachama mmoja, walikataa kufanya mkutano huo. Tukiwa na Mwenyekiti wa UDOMASA, tukaliripoti hili kwa VC, ambae ameamuru suala hili liishe Alhamisi 22, Septemba 2011, ameagiza Ofisi ya DVC PFA, HR, STC, RAAWU, UDOMASA tukutane. Tumekwisha pokea barua kwa ajili ya mkutano huo.
Cha kuchekesha wanachama RAAWU, iliyowaweka amabo si wao ni wengi, Lakini yupo mwanaharakati na mpiganaji mzoefu, ambae pia ni Katibu wa THTU, Bwana Fredrick Oywech, yupo Balozi Lipili, yupo Mwanamama mpambanaji Kuluthum Mchatta, hao ni baadhi tu. Barua zao za kujitoa RAAWU, niliziwasilisha mimi mwenyewe.
Lazima niweke kumbukumbu sahihi, pamoja na juhudi za wazi za Makamu Mkuu wa chuo kutaka suala hili liishe, kumekuwa na njama za makusudi kabisa, ambazo nitazieleza vizuri kabisa wakati wa kutoa comment. Sisi kama THTU, tunaandaa ripoti yetu juu ya hili suala , na msimamo wetu, kwa Mujibu wa sheria za kazi. Naomba niwahakikishie hili suala litafika mwisho. Tumeazimia baada ya mkutano huo, tusiporidhika tutalipeleka suala hili CMA (Court of Mediation & Arbitration), siku ya Ijumaa asubuhi. Hili tutalisimamia kwa uwezo wetu wote. Hadi sasa THTU ina wanachama zaidi ya 300, wafanyakazi waendeshaji wakiwa zaidi ya 100,ambayo ni zaidi ya asilimia 33 (33%), mchakato unafanyika majina yao yataonekana humu muda si mrefu. Wenzetu kwenye idadi yao hiyo ya 139, wanataaluma wapo 7 tu, ambayo ni asilimia 5 (5% tu)hii ni hatari sana kwa masilahi ya chuo, tusishangae pale UDOMASA inapobidi iwe Trade Union.
Nini msimamo wa THTU, juu ya hili suala? Siku ya Alhamisi jioni 22 septemba 2011, tuta-post kwenye hii blog yetu. Don’t Go away
Cheers MWERANGI, Iddy (Chairman)
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
Saturday, September 17, 2011
C158 Termination of Employment Convention, 1982
Convention concerning Termination of Employment at the Initiative of the Employer (Note: Date of coming into force: 23:11:1985.)
Convention:C158
Place:Geneva
Session of the Conference:68
Date of adoption:22:06:1982
Subject classification: Termination of Employment - Dismissal
Subject: Employment security
See the ratifications for this Convention
Status: No conclusions The Working Party on Policy regarding the Revision of Standards could not reach any conclusions regarding Convention No. 158 and Recommendation No. 166.
The General Conference of the International Labour Organisation,
Having been convened at Geneva by the Governing Body of the International Labour Office, and having met in its Sixty-eighth Session on 2 June 1982, and
Noting the existing international standards contained in the Termination of Employment Recommendation, 1963, and
Noting that since the adoption of the Termination of Employment Recommendation, 1963, significant developments have occurred in the law and practice of many member States on the questions covered by that Recommendation, and
Considering that these developments have made it appropriate to adopt new international standards on the subject, particularly having regard to the serious problems in this field resulting from the economic difficulties and technological changes experienced in recent years in many countries,
Having decided upon the adoption of certain proposals with regard to termination of employment at the initiative of the employer, which is the fifth item on the agenda of the session, and
Having determined that these proposals shall take the form of an international Convention;
adopts this twenty-second day of June of the year one thousand nine hundred and eighty-two the following Convention, which may be cited as the Termination of Employment Convention, 1982:
PART I. METHODS OF IMPLEMENTATION, SCOPE AND DEFINITIONS
Article 1
The provisions of this Convention shall, in so far as they are not otherwise made effective by means of collective agreements, arbitration awards or court decisions or in such other manner as may be consistent with national practice, be given effect by laws or regulations.
Article 2
1. This Convention applies to all branches of economic activity and to all employed persons.
2. A Member may exclude the following categories of employed persons from all or some of the provisions of this Convention:
(a) workers engaged under a contract of employment for a specified period of time or a specified task;
(b) workers serving a period of probation or a qualifying period of employment, determined in advance and of reasonable duration;
(c) workers engaged on a casual basis for a short period.
3. Adequate safeguards shall be provided against recourse to contracts of employment for a specified period of time the aim of which is to avoid the protection resulting from this Convention.
4. In so far as necessary, measures may be taken by the competent authority or through the appropriate machinery in a country, after consultation with the organisations of employers and workers concerned, where such exist, to exclude from the application of this Convention or certain provisions thereof categories of employed persons whose terms and conditions of employment are governed by special arrangements which as a whole provide protection that is at least equivalent to the protection afforded under the Convention.
5. In so far as necessary, measures may be taken by the competent authority or through the appropriate machinery in a country, after consultation with the organisations of employers and workers concerned, where such exist, to exclude from the application of this Convention or certain provisions thereof other limited categories of employed persons in respect of which special problems of a substantial nature arise in the light of the particular conditions of employment of the workers concerned or the size or nature of the undertaking that employs them.
6. Each Member which ratifies this Convention shall list in the first report on the application of the Convention submitted under Article 22 of the Constitution of the International Labour Organisation any categories which may have been excluded in pursuance of paragraphs 4 and 5 of this Article, giving the reasons for such exclusion, and shall state in subsequent reports the position of its law and practice regarding the categories excluded, and the extent to which effect has been given or is proposed to be given to the Convention in respect of such categories.
Article 3
For the purpose of this Convention the terms termination and termination of employment mean termination of employment at the initiative of the employer.
PART II.
STANDARD OF GENERAL APPLICATION
DIVISION A. JUSTIFICATION FOR TERMINATION
Article 4
The employment of a worker shall not be terminated unless there is a valid reason for such termination connected with the capacity or conduct of the worker or based on the operational requirements of the undertaking, establishment or service.
Article 5
The following, inter alia, shall not constitute valid reasons for termination:
(a) union membership or participation in union activities outside working hours or, with the consent of the employer, within working hours;
(b) seeking office as, or acting or having acted in the capacity of, a workers' representative;
(c) the filing of a complaint or the participation in proceedings against an employer involving alleged violation of laws or regulations or recourse to competent administrative authorities;
(d) race, colour, sex, marital status, family responsibilities, pregnancy, religion, political opinion, national extraction or social origin;
(e) absence from work during maternity leave.
Article 6
1. Temporary absence from work because of illness or injury shall not constitute a valid reason for termination.
2. The definition of what constitutes temporary absence from work, the extent to which medical certification shall be required and possible limitations to the application of paragraph 1 of this Article shall be determined in accordance with the methods of implementation referred to in Article 1 of this Convention.
DIVISION B. PROCEDURE PRIOR TO OR AT THE TIME OF TERMINATION
Article 7
The employment of a worker shall not be terminated for reasons related to the worker's conduct or performance before he is provided an opportunity to defend himself against the allegations made, unless the employer cannot reasonably be expected to provide this opportunity.
DIVISION C. PROCEDURE OF APPEAL AGAINST TERMINATION
Article 8
1. A worker who considers that his employment has been unjustifiably terminated shall be entitled to appeal against that termination to an impartial body, such as a court, labour tribunal, arbitration committee or arbitrator.
2. Where termination has been authorised by a competent authority the application of paragraph 1 of this Article may be varied according to national law and practice.
3. A worker may be deemed to have waived his right to appeal against the termination of his employment if he has not exercised that right within a reasonable period of time after termination.
Article 9
1. The bodies referred to in Article 8 of this Convention shall be empowered to examine the reasons given for the termination and the other circumstances relating to the case and to render a decision on whether the termination was justified.
2. In order for the worker not to have to bear alone the burden of proving that the termination was not justified, the methods of implementation referred to in Article 1 of this Convention shall provide for one or the other or both of the following possibilities:
(a) the burden of proving the existence of a valid reason for the termination as defined in Article 4 of this Convention shall rest on the employer;
(b) the bodies referred to in Article 8 of this Convention shall be empowered to reach a conclusion on the reason for the termination having regard to the evidence provided by the parties and according to procedures provided for by national law and practice.
3. In cases of termination stated to be for reasons based on the operational requirements of the undertaking, establishment or service, the bodies referred to in Article 8 of this Convention shall be empowered to determine whether the termination was indeed for these reasons, but the extent to which they shall also be empowered to decide whether these reasons are sufficient to justify that termination shall be determined by the methods of implementation referred to in Article 1 of this Convention.
Article 10
If the bodies referred to in Article 8 of this Convention find that termination is unjustified and if they are not empowered or do not find it practicable, in accordance with national law and practice, to declare the termination invalid and/or order or propose reinstatement of the worker, they shall be empowered to order payment of adequate compensation or such other relief as may be deemed appropriate.
DIVISION D. PERIOD OF NOTICE
Article 11
A worker whose employment is to be terminated shall be entitled to a reasonable period of notice or compensation in lieu thereof, unless he is guilty of serious misconduct, that is, misconduct of such a nature that it would be unreasonable to require the employer to continue his employment during the notice period.
DIVISION E. SEVERANCE ALLOWANCE AND OTHER INCOME PROTECTION
Article 12
1. A worker whose employment has been terminated shall be entitled, in accordance with national law and practice, to-
(a) a severance allowance or other separation benefits, the amount of which shall be based inter alia on length of service and the level of wages, and paid directly by the employer or by a fund constituted by employers' contributions; or
(b) benefits from unemployment insurance or assistance or other forms of social security, such as old-age or invalidity benefits, under the normal conditions to which such benefits are subject; or
(c) a combination of such allowance and benefits.
2. A worker who does not fulfil the qualifying conditions for unemployment insurance or assistance under a scheme of general scope need not be paid any allowance or benefit referred to in paragraph 1, subparagraph (a), of this Article solely because he is not receiving an unemployment benefit under paragraph 1, subparagraph (b).
3. Provision may be made by the methods of implementation referred to in Article 1 of this Convention for loss of entitlement to the allowance or benefits referred to in paragraph 1, subparagraph (a), of this Article in the event of termination for serious misconduct.
PART III. SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS CONCERNING TERMINATIONS OF EMPLOYMENT FOR ECONOMIC, TECHNOLOGICAL, STRUCTURAL OR SIMILAR REASONS
DIVISION A. CONSULTATION OF WORKERS' REPRESENTATIVES
Article 13
1. When the employer contemplates terminations for reasons of an economic, technological, structural or similar nature, the employer shall:
(a) provide the workers' representatives concerned in good time with relevant information including the reasons for the terminations contemplated, the number and categories of workers likely to be affected and the period over which the terminations are intended to be carried out;
(b) give, in accordance with national law and practice, the workers' representatives concerned, as early as possible, an opportunity for consultation on measures to be taken to avert or to minimise the terminations and measures to mitigate the adverse effects of any terminations on the workers concerned such as finding alternative employment.
2. The applicability of paragraph 1 of this Article may be limited by the methods of implementation referred to in Article 1 of this Convention to cases in which the number of workers whose termination of employment is contemplated is at least a specified number or percentage of the workforce.
3. For the purposes of this Article the term the workers' representatives concerned means the workers' representatives recognised as such by national law or practice, in conformity with the Workers' Representatives Convention, 1971.
DIVISION B. NOTIFICATION TO THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY
Article 14
1. When the employer contemplates terminations for reasons of an economic, technological, structural or similar nature, he shall notify, in accordance with national law and practice, the competent authority thereof as early as possible, giving relevant information, including a written statement of the reasons for the terminations, the number and categories of workers likely to be affected and the period over which the terminations are intended to be carried out.
2. National laws or regulations may limit the applicability of paragraph 1 of this Article to cases in which the number of workers whose termination of employment is contemplated is at least a specified number or percentage of the workforce.
3. The employer shall notify the competent authority of the terminations referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article a minimum period of time before carrying out the terminations, such period to be specified by national laws or regulations.
PART IV. FINAL PROVISIONS
Article 15
The formal ratifications of this Convention shall be communicated to the Director-General of the International Labour Office for registration.
Article 16
1. This Convention shall be binding only upon those Members of the International Labour Organisation whose ratifications have been registered with the Director-General.
2. It shall come into force twelve months after the date on which the ratifications of two Members have been registered with the Director-General.
3. Thereafter, this Convention shall come into force for any Member twelve months after the date on which its ratification has been registered.
Article 17
1. A Member which has ratified this Convention may denounce it after the expiration of ten years from the date on which the Convention first comes into force, by an act communicated to the Director-General of the International Labour Office for registration. Such denunciation shall not take effect until one year after the date on which it is registered.
2. Each Member which has ratified this Convention and which does not, within the year following the expiration of the period of ten years mentioned in the preceding paragraph, exercise the right of denunciation provided for in this Article, will be bound for another period of ten years and, thereafter, may denounce this Convention at the expiration of each period of ten years under the terms provided for in this Article.
Article 18
1. The Director-General of the International Labour Office shall notify all Members of the International Labour Organisation of the registration of all ratifications and denunciations communicated to him by the Members of the Organisation.
2. When notifying the Members of the Organisation of the registration of the second ratification communicated to him, the Director-General shall draw the attention of the Members of the Organisation to the date upon which the Convention will come into force.
Article 19
The Director-General of the International Labour Office shall communicate to the Secretary-General of the United Nations for registration in accordance with article 102 of the Charter of the United Nations full particulars of all ratifications and acts of denunciation registered by him in accordance with the provisions of the preceding Articles.
Article 20
At such times as it may consider necessary the Governing Body of the International Labour Office shall present to the General Conference a report on the working of this Convention and shall examine the desirability of placing on the agenda of the Conference the question of its revision in whole or in part.
Article 21
1. Should the Conference adopt a new Convention revising this Convention in whole or in part, then, unless the new Convention otherwise provides-
(a) the ratification by a Member of the new revising Convention shall ipso jure involve the immediate denunciation of this Convention, notwithstanding the provisions of Article 17 above, if and when the new revising Convention shall have come into force;
(b) as from the date when the new revising Convention comes into force this Convention shall cease to be open to ratification by the Members.
2. This Convention shall in any case remain in force in its actual form and content for those Members which have ratified it but have not ratified the revising Convention.
Article 22
The English and French versions of the text of this Convention are equally authoritative.
Convention:C158
Place:Geneva
Session of the Conference:68
Date of adoption:22:06:1982
Subject classification: Termination of Employment - Dismissal
Subject: Employment security
See the ratifications for this Convention
Status: No conclusions The Working Party on Policy regarding the Revision of Standards could not reach any conclusions regarding Convention No. 158 and Recommendation No. 166.
The General Conference of the International Labour Organisation,
Having been convened at Geneva by the Governing Body of the International Labour Office, and having met in its Sixty-eighth Session on 2 June 1982, and
Noting the existing international standards contained in the Termination of Employment Recommendation, 1963, and
Noting that since the adoption of the Termination of Employment Recommendation, 1963, significant developments have occurred in the law and practice of many member States on the questions covered by that Recommendation, and
Considering that these developments have made it appropriate to adopt new international standards on the subject, particularly having regard to the serious problems in this field resulting from the economic difficulties and technological changes experienced in recent years in many countries,
Having decided upon the adoption of certain proposals with regard to termination of employment at the initiative of the employer, which is the fifth item on the agenda of the session, and
Having determined that these proposals shall take the form of an international Convention;
adopts this twenty-second day of June of the year one thousand nine hundred and eighty-two the following Convention, which may be cited as the Termination of Employment Convention, 1982:
PART I. METHODS OF IMPLEMENTATION, SCOPE AND DEFINITIONS
Article 1
The provisions of this Convention shall, in so far as they are not otherwise made effective by means of collective agreements, arbitration awards or court decisions or in such other manner as may be consistent with national practice, be given effect by laws or regulations.
Article 2
1. This Convention applies to all branches of economic activity and to all employed persons.
2. A Member may exclude the following categories of employed persons from all or some of the provisions of this Convention:
(a) workers engaged under a contract of employment for a specified period of time or a specified task;
(b) workers serving a period of probation or a qualifying period of employment, determined in advance and of reasonable duration;
(c) workers engaged on a casual basis for a short period.
3. Adequate safeguards shall be provided against recourse to contracts of employment for a specified period of time the aim of which is to avoid the protection resulting from this Convention.
4. In so far as necessary, measures may be taken by the competent authority or through the appropriate machinery in a country, after consultation with the organisations of employers and workers concerned, where such exist, to exclude from the application of this Convention or certain provisions thereof categories of employed persons whose terms and conditions of employment are governed by special arrangements which as a whole provide protection that is at least equivalent to the protection afforded under the Convention.
5. In so far as necessary, measures may be taken by the competent authority or through the appropriate machinery in a country, after consultation with the organisations of employers and workers concerned, where such exist, to exclude from the application of this Convention or certain provisions thereof other limited categories of employed persons in respect of which special problems of a substantial nature arise in the light of the particular conditions of employment of the workers concerned or the size or nature of the undertaking that employs them.
6. Each Member which ratifies this Convention shall list in the first report on the application of the Convention submitted under Article 22 of the Constitution of the International Labour Organisation any categories which may have been excluded in pursuance of paragraphs 4 and 5 of this Article, giving the reasons for such exclusion, and shall state in subsequent reports the position of its law and practice regarding the categories excluded, and the extent to which effect has been given or is proposed to be given to the Convention in respect of such categories.
Article 3
For the purpose of this Convention the terms termination and termination of employment mean termination of employment at the initiative of the employer.
PART II.
STANDARD OF GENERAL APPLICATION
DIVISION A. JUSTIFICATION FOR TERMINATION
Article 4
The employment of a worker shall not be terminated unless there is a valid reason for such termination connected with the capacity or conduct of the worker or based on the operational requirements of the undertaking, establishment or service.
Article 5
The following, inter alia, shall not constitute valid reasons for termination:
(a) union membership or participation in union activities outside working hours or, with the consent of the employer, within working hours;
(b) seeking office as, or acting or having acted in the capacity of, a workers' representative;
(c) the filing of a complaint or the participation in proceedings against an employer involving alleged violation of laws or regulations or recourse to competent administrative authorities;
(d) race, colour, sex, marital status, family responsibilities, pregnancy, religion, political opinion, national extraction or social origin;
(e) absence from work during maternity leave.
Article 6
1. Temporary absence from work because of illness or injury shall not constitute a valid reason for termination.
2. The definition of what constitutes temporary absence from work, the extent to which medical certification shall be required and possible limitations to the application of paragraph 1 of this Article shall be determined in accordance with the methods of implementation referred to in Article 1 of this Convention.
DIVISION B. PROCEDURE PRIOR TO OR AT THE TIME OF TERMINATION
Article 7
The employment of a worker shall not be terminated for reasons related to the worker's conduct or performance before he is provided an opportunity to defend himself against the allegations made, unless the employer cannot reasonably be expected to provide this opportunity.
DIVISION C. PROCEDURE OF APPEAL AGAINST TERMINATION
Article 8
1. A worker who considers that his employment has been unjustifiably terminated shall be entitled to appeal against that termination to an impartial body, such as a court, labour tribunal, arbitration committee or arbitrator.
2. Where termination has been authorised by a competent authority the application of paragraph 1 of this Article may be varied according to national law and practice.
3. A worker may be deemed to have waived his right to appeal against the termination of his employment if he has not exercised that right within a reasonable period of time after termination.
Article 9
1. The bodies referred to in Article 8 of this Convention shall be empowered to examine the reasons given for the termination and the other circumstances relating to the case and to render a decision on whether the termination was justified.
2. In order for the worker not to have to bear alone the burden of proving that the termination was not justified, the methods of implementation referred to in Article 1 of this Convention shall provide for one or the other or both of the following possibilities:
(a) the burden of proving the existence of a valid reason for the termination as defined in Article 4 of this Convention shall rest on the employer;
(b) the bodies referred to in Article 8 of this Convention shall be empowered to reach a conclusion on the reason for the termination having regard to the evidence provided by the parties and according to procedures provided for by national law and practice.
3. In cases of termination stated to be for reasons based on the operational requirements of the undertaking, establishment or service, the bodies referred to in Article 8 of this Convention shall be empowered to determine whether the termination was indeed for these reasons, but the extent to which they shall also be empowered to decide whether these reasons are sufficient to justify that termination shall be determined by the methods of implementation referred to in Article 1 of this Convention.
Article 10
If the bodies referred to in Article 8 of this Convention find that termination is unjustified and if they are not empowered or do not find it practicable, in accordance with national law and practice, to declare the termination invalid and/or order or propose reinstatement of the worker, they shall be empowered to order payment of adequate compensation or such other relief as may be deemed appropriate.
DIVISION D. PERIOD OF NOTICE
Article 11
A worker whose employment is to be terminated shall be entitled to a reasonable period of notice or compensation in lieu thereof, unless he is guilty of serious misconduct, that is, misconduct of such a nature that it would be unreasonable to require the employer to continue his employment during the notice period.
DIVISION E. SEVERANCE ALLOWANCE AND OTHER INCOME PROTECTION
Article 12
1. A worker whose employment has been terminated shall be entitled, in accordance with national law and practice, to-
(a) a severance allowance or other separation benefits, the amount of which shall be based inter alia on length of service and the level of wages, and paid directly by the employer or by a fund constituted by employers' contributions; or
(b) benefits from unemployment insurance or assistance or other forms of social security, such as old-age or invalidity benefits, under the normal conditions to which such benefits are subject; or
(c) a combination of such allowance and benefits.
2. A worker who does not fulfil the qualifying conditions for unemployment insurance or assistance under a scheme of general scope need not be paid any allowance or benefit referred to in paragraph 1, subparagraph (a), of this Article solely because he is not receiving an unemployment benefit under paragraph 1, subparagraph (b).
3. Provision may be made by the methods of implementation referred to in Article 1 of this Convention for loss of entitlement to the allowance or benefits referred to in paragraph 1, subparagraph (a), of this Article in the event of termination for serious misconduct.
PART III. SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS CONCERNING TERMINATIONS OF EMPLOYMENT FOR ECONOMIC, TECHNOLOGICAL, STRUCTURAL OR SIMILAR REASONS
DIVISION A. CONSULTATION OF WORKERS' REPRESENTATIVES
Article 13
1. When the employer contemplates terminations for reasons of an economic, technological, structural or similar nature, the employer shall:
(a) provide the workers' representatives concerned in good time with relevant information including the reasons for the terminations contemplated, the number and categories of workers likely to be affected and the period over which the terminations are intended to be carried out;
(b) give, in accordance with national law and practice, the workers' representatives concerned, as early as possible, an opportunity for consultation on measures to be taken to avert or to minimise the terminations and measures to mitigate the adverse effects of any terminations on the workers concerned such as finding alternative employment.
2. The applicability of paragraph 1 of this Article may be limited by the methods of implementation referred to in Article 1 of this Convention to cases in which the number of workers whose termination of employment is contemplated is at least a specified number or percentage of the workforce.
3. For the purposes of this Article the term the workers' representatives concerned means the workers' representatives recognised as such by national law or practice, in conformity with the Workers' Representatives Convention, 1971.
DIVISION B. NOTIFICATION TO THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY
Article 14
1. When the employer contemplates terminations for reasons of an economic, technological, structural or similar nature, he shall notify, in accordance with national law and practice, the competent authority thereof as early as possible, giving relevant information, including a written statement of the reasons for the terminations, the number and categories of workers likely to be affected and the period over which the terminations are intended to be carried out.
2. National laws or regulations may limit the applicability of paragraph 1 of this Article to cases in which the number of workers whose termination of employment is contemplated is at least a specified number or percentage of the workforce.
3. The employer shall notify the competent authority of the terminations referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article a minimum period of time before carrying out the terminations, such period to be specified by national laws or regulations.
PART IV. FINAL PROVISIONS
Article 15
The formal ratifications of this Convention shall be communicated to the Director-General of the International Labour Office for registration.
Article 16
1. This Convention shall be binding only upon those Members of the International Labour Organisation whose ratifications have been registered with the Director-General.
2. It shall come into force twelve months after the date on which the ratifications of two Members have been registered with the Director-General.
3. Thereafter, this Convention shall come into force for any Member twelve months after the date on which its ratification has been registered.
Article 17
1. A Member which has ratified this Convention may denounce it after the expiration of ten years from the date on which the Convention first comes into force, by an act communicated to the Director-General of the International Labour Office for registration. Such denunciation shall not take effect until one year after the date on which it is registered.
2. Each Member which has ratified this Convention and which does not, within the year following the expiration of the period of ten years mentioned in the preceding paragraph, exercise the right of denunciation provided for in this Article, will be bound for another period of ten years and, thereafter, may denounce this Convention at the expiration of each period of ten years under the terms provided for in this Article.
Article 18
1. The Director-General of the International Labour Office shall notify all Members of the International Labour Organisation of the registration of all ratifications and denunciations communicated to him by the Members of the Organisation.
2. When notifying the Members of the Organisation of the registration of the second ratification communicated to him, the Director-General shall draw the attention of the Members of the Organisation to the date upon which the Convention will come into force.
Article 19
The Director-General of the International Labour Office shall communicate to the Secretary-General of the United Nations for registration in accordance with article 102 of the Charter of the United Nations full particulars of all ratifications and acts of denunciation registered by him in accordance with the provisions of the preceding Articles.
Article 20
At such times as it may consider necessary the Governing Body of the International Labour Office shall present to the General Conference a report on the working of this Convention and shall examine the desirability of placing on the agenda of the Conference the question of its revision in whole or in part.
Article 21
1. Should the Conference adopt a new Convention revising this Convention in whole or in part, then, unless the new Convention otherwise provides-
(a) the ratification by a Member of the new revising Convention shall ipso jure involve the immediate denunciation of this Convention, notwithstanding the provisions of Article 17 above, if and when the new revising Convention shall have come into force;
(b) as from the date when the new revising Convention comes into force this Convention shall cease to be open to ratification by the Members.
2. This Convention shall in any case remain in force in its actual form and content for those Members which have ratified it but have not ratified the revising Convention.
Article 22
The English and French versions of the text of this Convention are equally authoritative.
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
NAMNA YA KUWASILISHA MALALAMIKO
Dear Members,
Kumekuwa na malalamiko kwa wanachama wetu, either wamepunjwa mshahara au kuna stahiki zao wamenyimwa. Lakini wengi wao wakiwafuata viongozi wa kamati ya utendaji kulalamika wakitaka msaada wa kufuatilia ili haki itendeke.
Napenda kuchukua fursa hii kutoa rai, namna nzuri ya kuwasilisha malalamiko yako, andika barua kwenda kwa
KATIBU WA TAWI,
THTU UDOM BRANCH.
P.O.BOX 1472,
DODOMA.
kwenye barua yako eleza vizuri hoja juu ya malalamiko yako, weka viambatanisho vyote muhimu, na ikabidhi mapema kwa Katibu, ambaye atatoa muongozo namna nzuri ya kushughulikia tatizo lako. Matatizo yatakayowasilishwa kwa mdomo tu, hayatashughulikiwa kwa kuwa hayana grounds kwa ajili ya ufuatiliaji. Ikiwa utakabidhi malalamiko yako kwa maandishi.
Tumeshazungumza na Katibu ndani ya siku 7, atakuwa ameshatoa muongozo juu ya kero husika.
NIA NA MWELEKEO WETU DAIMA NI KUJENGA
Kumekuwa na malalamiko kwa wanachama wetu, either wamepunjwa mshahara au kuna stahiki zao wamenyimwa. Lakini wengi wao wakiwafuata viongozi wa kamati ya utendaji kulalamika wakitaka msaada wa kufuatilia ili haki itendeke.
Napenda kuchukua fursa hii kutoa rai, namna nzuri ya kuwasilisha malalamiko yako, andika barua kwenda kwa
KATIBU WA TAWI,
THTU UDOM BRANCH.
P.O.BOX 1472,
DODOMA.
kwenye barua yako eleza vizuri hoja juu ya malalamiko yako, weka viambatanisho vyote muhimu, na ikabidhi mapema kwa Katibu, ambaye atatoa muongozo namna nzuri ya kushughulikia tatizo lako. Matatizo yatakayowasilishwa kwa mdomo tu, hayatashughulikiwa kwa kuwa hayana grounds kwa ajili ya ufuatiliaji. Ikiwa utakabidhi malalamiko yako kwa maandishi.
Tumeshazungumza na Katibu ndani ya siku 7, atakuwa ameshatoa muongozo juu ya kero husika.
NIA NA MWELEKEO WETU DAIMA NI KUJENGA
Saturday, September 10, 2011
PINGAMIZI JUU YA KUFUKUZWA KAZI MJUMBE KAMATI YA UTENDAJI THTU DOTTO NANDHI
PINGAMIZI LA KUFUKUZWA KAZI BWANA DOTTO NHANDI (0787103655) KINYUME NA SHERIA NA. 6 YA MWAKA 2004 YA AJIRA NA MAHUSIANO KAZINI PAMOJA NA KANUNI ZAKE
Utangulizi
Bw. Dotto Nhandi, kabla ya kufukuzwa kazi kwa barua yenye kumb. Na. UDOM/AC/PCF-177/10 ya tarehe 15 Agosti 2011, alikuwa mwajiriwa wa kudumu katika Chuo Kikuu cha Dodoma tangu tarehe 22 Septemba 2008 na kuthibitshwa baada ya kumaliza muda wa majaribio (probation) na kuthibitishwa kuanzia tarehe 18 Juni 2009. Mwajiriwa alianza kazi kwa ngazi ya ‘Tutorial Assistant’.
Kwa nyakati tofauti Bw. Dotto Nhandi amewahi kushika nyadhifa zifuatazo
i. Mwakilishi wa wafanyakazi wa Chuo cha Elimu katika Baraza la wafanyakazi tangu Aprili 2011 mpaka alipofukuzwa kazi kinyume na sheria.
ii. Mjumbe Kamati ya Utendaji ya tawi – THTU UDOM tangu Mei 2011 mpaka alipofukuzwa kazi kinyume na sheria.
iii. Mjumbe Kamati ya Utendaji katika jumuiya ya wahadhiri (UDOMASA) tangu Januari 2011 mpaka alipofukuzwa kazi kinyume na sheria.
Nafasi zote hizo ambazo ni za kuchaguliwa amekuwa akizitumikia kwa wakati mmoja na zinaonesha imani waliyo nayo wafanyakazi wenzake kwake. Mbali ya hayo ni mchapa kazi anayejituma na ni mwaminifu na kwa THTU ni mtu wa kutegemewa sana. Bw. Dotto Nhandi anamalizia shahada yake ya uzamili na amekwishakabidhi dissertation kwa ajili ya kushahishwa. Matokeo ya awali yanaonesha kuwa Bw. Dotto Nhandi amefanya vizuri sana.
Maelezo mafupi juu ya tuhuma zinazomkabili
Mnamo tarehe 14 Juni 2011 Kaimu Mkuu wa Chuo cha Elimu ya Chuo Kikuu cha Dodoma aliitisha kikao kupitia wakuu wa Idara kwa ajili ya ‘Teaching Practice (TP) orientation’. Kikao kiliendeshwa na Dakta T. Bali (0765740030) na Katibu alikuwa Bw. Mbegu. Baada ya kikao hicho wahadhiri walifuatilia dondoo (minutes) kupitia kwa TP coordinator kuona kama zimekwenda kwenye mamlaka husika lakini wakagundua kwamba hazikuandikwa. Ndipo baadhi ya wahadhiri wakamwomba Bw. Dotto Nhandi ayaweke mawazo ya wahadhiri kwenye maandishi ili yawasilishwe kwenye uongozi wa chuo.
Bw. Dotto Nhandi alifanya kazi hiyo tarehe 17 Juni 2011 na kuwasilisha kwa Kaimu Mkuu wa Chuo (Principal), Deans and ‘TP Coordinator’ na kuacha swala hilo lifanyiwe kazi kwa zaidi ya majuma mawili. Na kipindi hicho wahadhiri walipisha mitihani ifanyike.
Baada ya mitihani kwisha, wahadhiri wakajadiliana waitishe kikao mnamo tarehe 7 Julai 2011 saa 3 kamili asubuhi siku ambayo kimsingi ilikuwa ni mapumziko. Bw. Nhandi aliandika ujumbe wa simu kuwajulisha wahadhiri wenzake juu ya kikao.
Siku moja kabla ya kikao ambacho wahadhri walitarajia kufanya tarehe 7 Julai 2011, Bw. Nhandi alikwenda kuonana na Kaimu Mkuu wa Chuo, Dakta L. Mtahabwa ili kupata maoni yake juu ya mawazo ya wahadhiri yaliyowekwa kwenye maandishi. Mazungumzo yalichukua zaidi ya nusu saa na Kaimu Mkuu wa Chuo alishauri majibu ya bajeti yasubiriwe kutoka utawala wa Chuo Kikuu cha Dodoma (central administration). Kimsingi, Bw. Dotto Nhandi alimwelewa Kaimu Mkuu wa Chuo cha Elimu na hivyo kuondoka. Lakini kinyume na matarajio ya wengi Bw. Dotto Nhandi, siku hiyo hiyo, alipokea barua yenye kumb. Na. UDOM/COE/PCF11/2 (angalia kiambatanisho B) ikimwonya kwa tuhuma mbili: kuchochea wanataaluma kugoma (incitement) na kudharau mamlaka (insubordination) ya chuo.
Baada ya kupokea barua hiyo kwa mshangao na mshituko mkubwa, Bw. Dotto Nhandi aliwasiliana na viongozi wa UDOMASA na baadhi ya wahadhiri wa Chuo cha Elimu wakaitisha kikao ili kujiridhisha dhidi ya tuhuma alizopewa Bw. Dotto Nhandi. Kikao hicho kilijiridhisha kuwa mawazo yaliyoandikwa na Bw. Dotto Nhandi yalikuwa ni mawazo ya wahadhiri wote wa Chuo cha Elimu.
Kikao hicho kiliamua kwamba UDOMASA ifuatilie swala hilo na kuhakikisha barua hiyo ya onyo dhidi ya Bw. Dotto Nhandi inaondolewa kwenye faili kwa sababu ilitolewa kinyume na taratibu. Tarehe 13 Julai 2011 Bw. Dotto Nhandi aliandika barua ikiwa ni sehemu ya kukata rufaa na kupata fursa ya kujieleza na akapendekeza kuwa barua ya onyo iondolewe kwenye faili lake. Tarehe 14 Julai 2011 Kaimu Makamu Mkuu wa Chuo alijibu kwamba onyo linabaki pale pale na kumwomba Bw. Dotto Nhandi atumie ushauri huo siku zijazo.
Tarehe 20 Julai 2011 saa 5 asubuhi, Bw. Nhandi alipokea barua yenye kumb. Na. UDOM/AC/PCF-177/9 ya tarehe 15 Julai 2011 ikimtaka afike katika Kamati ya Nidhamu ya Chuo Kikuu cha Dodoma tarehe 21 Julai 2011 kwa ajili ya kujibu tuhuma za “Breaching Public Service Regulations 42 (1) (3); 65 (1) III (i, ii, v, and vii) pamoja na “Breaching section F.26 of the 2009 Standing Orders of Public Service”.
Mnamo tarehe 18 Agosti 2011 Bw. Dotto Nhandi alipokea barua ya kufukuzwa kazi ambayo ilitokana na maazimio ya Kikao Maalum cha Baraza la Chuo la tarehe 12 Agosti 2011.
Sababu za kupinga adhabu ya kufukuzwa kazi
1. Barua ya Kaimu Mkuu wa Chuo cha Elimu (kiambatanisho B) imekiuka sheria na. 6 ya mwaka 2004 ya ajira na mahusiano kazini; kanuni za utendaji bora za mwaka 2007 sehemu ya 6 ihusuyo mwongozo wa sera na taratibu za kushughulikia nidhamu sehemu ya 2 na 3 (T.S. Na. 42). Kimsingi Bw. Dotto Nhandi hakuwahi kupewea onyo kwa mdomo wala maelekezo yoyote kutoka kwa Kaimu Mkuu wa Chuo cha Elimu kama sheria inavyotaka kabla ya kupewa onyo kwa maandishi.
2. Onyo kwa maandishi kwa Bw. Dotto Nhandi lilikiuka sheria ya ajira na mahusiano kazini na kanuni zake T.S. Na. 42 mwaka 2007 ambazo zinamtaka meneja amtaarifu mwajiriwa sababu za hatua iliyochukuliwa na kumpatia mwajiriwa fursa ya kujieleza. Baada ya hapo meneja aamue kama atampatia au hatampatia mwajiriwa onyo kwa maandishi. Bw. Dotto Nhandi hakupata fursa ya kujieleza.
3. Hata Bw. Dotto Nhandi alipojaribu kutumia haki yake ya msingi kujieleza akiamini ameonewa na kushauri barua ya onyo aliyopewa iondolewe kwenye faili lake kwa sababu taratibu hazikuzingatiwa, alijibiwa kwamba onyo lipo pale pale. Pamoja na kumkumbusha Bw. Dotto Nhandi, Kaimu Mkuu wa Chuo cha Elimu aliendelea kuvunja sheria na kanuni zake (kanuni za utendaji bora) T. S. Na. 42 ya tarehe 16 Februari 2007.
Pia Bw. Dotto Nhandi, kupitia barua yake ya kujitetea dhidi ya onyo alilopewa, aliomba apatiwe barua ya kumtaka radhi kwa tuhuma nzito za uchochezi wa mgomo na kudharau mamlaka akiamini fika kwamba yaliyofanywa yalikuwa ni kwa ajili ya kujenga; na ikizingatiwa kwamba hakuna mahali hapo chuoni amani ilivunjika au uharibifu wowote kutokea. Hapa alikuwa akitumia haki yake ya msingi ya kujieleza na kujitetea kwa mujibu wa sheria. Hata hivyo, alijibiwa kuwa onyo lipo pale pale kupitia barua ya tarehe 14 Julai 2011.
4. Bw. Dotto Nhandi aliitwa kwenye kikao cha Kamati ya Nidhamu ya Chuo Kikuu cha Dodoma tarehe 21 Julai 2011 kupitia barua aliyopewa tarehe 20 Julai 2011 saa 5 kamili asubuhi. Hapa alinyimwa haki ya msingi (natural justice) ya kuweza kupata muda wa kutosha kwa ajili ya kuandaa utetezi wake. Sheria inataka angalau masaa 48. Kutokana na kunyimwa muda pia Bw. Dotto Nhandi alishindwa kwenda na shahidi wake kama sheria inavyotoa fursa hiyo.
5. Swala la Bw. Nhandi lilikwenda moja kwa moja kwenye Kamati ya Nidhamu pamoja na kwamba uongozi wa Chuo cha Elimu haukushauri swala hilo lifikishwe kwenye kamati hiyo. Barua iliyoandikwa tarehe 14 Julai 2011 na Kaimu Mkuu wa Chuo cha Elimu ikiwa ni majibu kwa Bw. Dotto Nhandi ilisisitiza kuwa onyo lilibaki pale pale na hakuna maelezo yoyote kwamba swala hili lingepelekwa katika Kamati ya Nidhamu. Swala la Bw. Nhandi halijajadiliwa na vikao husika vya Skuli au Chuo cha Elimu na hata hayajafika kwenye Kamati ya Rasilimali Watu kama ilivyo kwa wafanyakazi wengine.
Ikiwa Kaimu Mkuu wa Chuo cha Elimu aliridhika, kupitia barua yake yenye kumb. Na. UDOM/COE/PCF 11/2 ya tarehe 6 Julai 2011 kwenda kwa Bw. Dotto Nhandi; na hakuna kikao chochote ngazi ya Chuo cha Elimu kilichoomba swala la Bw. Dotto Nhandi lipelekwe kwenye Kamati ya Nidhamu, je nani aliyependekeza hatua hiyo? Hatutaki kuamini kuwa swala hili limeibuliwa kwa hila.
6. Kikao maalum cha Baraza la Chuo kilichofanyika tarehe 12 Agosti 2011, ambacho ndicho kiliridhia kufukuzwa kwa Bw. Dotto Nhandi, kilifanyika baada ya taarifa iliyotolewa muda mfupi sana kabla ya kikao chenyewe. Mwakilishi wa jumuiya ya wahadhiri, Bw. Paul Loisulie (0755210310) alipewa taarifa saa 3 asubuhi na kikao kikafanyika saa 4 asubuhi ya siku iyo hiyo. Hali hiyo pia ilinyima fursa ya kuandaa utetezi (natural justice) kwa ajili ya watu anaowawakilisha, Bw. Dotto Nhandi akiwa mmoja wao. Tunashawishika kuamini kwamba kikao hiki kimefanyika kwa hila na hivyo kuzuia natural justice.
7. a). Tarehe 18 Agosti 2011 Bw. Dotto Nhandi alipokea barua ya kufukuzwa kazi yenye kumb. Na. UDOM/AC/PCF-177/10 ya tarehe 15 Agosti 2011 akihukumiwa kwa kutotii mamlaka na hivyo kukiuka ‘First Schedule of the Public Service Regulation 42 (3) na kanuni za kudumu za utumishi wa umma na. F.27 (1) C. Kosa ambalo kimsingi Bw. Dotto Nhandi halikubali. Barua hiyo haionyeshi kuwa Bw. Dotto Nhandi alifukuzwa kwa kutumia vifungu gani vya adhabu au kwa kutumia sheria ipi.
b). Kwenye barua hiyo anaombwa alipe mkopo ambao dhamana yake ilikuwa ni ajira kwa maana ya mshahara na chuo kilidhamini kwa asilimia 100 iwapo angeshindwa kulipa. Bw. Dotto Nhandi hawajibiki kwa namna yoyote ile kulipa deni hilo kwa kuzingatia mkataba uliokuwepo kati ya chuo na benki husika (CRDB).
8. Kamati ya Utendaji ya THTU – UDOM imepitia vielelezo vyote ikiwemo barua ya kufukuzwa kazi na kuangalia taratibu zote zilizotumika kwa ufupi zinapingana na katiba ya Jamhuri ya Muungano wa Tanzania Ibara ya 22 na sheria na. 6 ya mwaka 2004 ya ajira na mahusiano kazini na kanuni zake.
Ushauri na mapendekezo
1. Uongozi wa THTU tawi la UDOM na uongozi wa UDOMASA unafanya jitihada za kukutana na mwenyekiti wa Baraza la Chuo kuona kama kuna uwezekano wa kutengua adhabu hii. Hii ni njia mojawapo ya kidiplomasia ingawa haipo kwa mujibu wa sheria.
2. Wakati tukiendelea na shauri la awali, tunaiomba THTU makao makuu, kupitia mwanasheria wake Dakta Sengondo Mvungi, itusaidie kulifikisha swala hili kwenye Baraza la Usuluhishi kwa mujibu wa sheria ya kazi Na. 6 ya 2004 sehemu ya 86.
3. Ikiwa hatutafanikiwa na mazungumzo na mwenyekiti wa Baraza la Chuo, tutamsaidia Bw. Dotto Nhandi kukata rufaa kwenye kamati ya rufaa ya Chuo Kikuu cha Dodoma.
4. Ikiwa hakuna mafanikio hata katika Baraza la Usuluhishi, tunaomba na tumejiandaa swala hili lipelekwe katika mahakama ya kazi kama inavyoelezwa na sheria ya ajira na mahusiano kazini sehemu ya 94.
5. Tunaamini kwa dhati kabisa kuwa haki itatendeka kwenye moja ya mapendekezo hapo juu. Hata hivyo, tupo tayari swala hili lipelekwe hata mahakama ya rufaa ikiwa hatua zote za chini zitashindikana.
Tunataka haki itendeke na ionekane kuwa imetendeka.
NIA NA MWELEKEO WETU DAIMA NI KUJENGA
Nawasilisha,
Iddy Mwerangi
Mwenyekiti – THTU UDOM
Utangulizi
Bw. Dotto Nhandi, kabla ya kufukuzwa kazi kwa barua yenye kumb. Na. UDOM/AC/PCF-177/10 ya tarehe 15 Agosti 2011, alikuwa mwajiriwa wa kudumu katika Chuo Kikuu cha Dodoma tangu tarehe 22 Septemba 2008 na kuthibitshwa baada ya kumaliza muda wa majaribio (probation) na kuthibitishwa kuanzia tarehe 18 Juni 2009. Mwajiriwa alianza kazi kwa ngazi ya ‘Tutorial Assistant’.
Kwa nyakati tofauti Bw. Dotto Nhandi amewahi kushika nyadhifa zifuatazo
i. Mwakilishi wa wafanyakazi wa Chuo cha Elimu katika Baraza la wafanyakazi tangu Aprili 2011 mpaka alipofukuzwa kazi kinyume na sheria.
ii. Mjumbe Kamati ya Utendaji ya tawi – THTU UDOM tangu Mei 2011 mpaka alipofukuzwa kazi kinyume na sheria.
iii. Mjumbe Kamati ya Utendaji katika jumuiya ya wahadhiri (UDOMASA) tangu Januari 2011 mpaka alipofukuzwa kazi kinyume na sheria.
Nafasi zote hizo ambazo ni za kuchaguliwa amekuwa akizitumikia kwa wakati mmoja na zinaonesha imani waliyo nayo wafanyakazi wenzake kwake. Mbali ya hayo ni mchapa kazi anayejituma na ni mwaminifu na kwa THTU ni mtu wa kutegemewa sana. Bw. Dotto Nhandi anamalizia shahada yake ya uzamili na amekwishakabidhi dissertation kwa ajili ya kushahishwa. Matokeo ya awali yanaonesha kuwa Bw. Dotto Nhandi amefanya vizuri sana.
Maelezo mafupi juu ya tuhuma zinazomkabili
Mnamo tarehe 14 Juni 2011 Kaimu Mkuu wa Chuo cha Elimu ya Chuo Kikuu cha Dodoma aliitisha kikao kupitia wakuu wa Idara kwa ajili ya ‘Teaching Practice (TP) orientation’. Kikao kiliendeshwa na Dakta T. Bali (0765740030) na Katibu alikuwa Bw. Mbegu. Baada ya kikao hicho wahadhiri walifuatilia dondoo (minutes) kupitia kwa TP coordinator kuona kama zimekwenda kwenye mamlaka husika lakini wakagundua kwamba hazikuandikwa. Ndipo baadhi ya wahadhiri wakamwomba Bw. Dotto Nhandi ayaweke mawazo ya wahadhiri kwenye maandishi ili yawasilishwe kwenye uongozi wa chuo.
Bw. Dotto Nhandi alifanya kazi hiyo tarehe 17 Juni 2011 na kuwasilisha kwa Kaimu Mkuu wa Chuo (Principal), Deans and ‘TP Coordinator’ na kuacha swala hilo lifanyiwe kazi kwa zaidi ya majuma mawili. Na kipindi hicho wahadhiri walipisha mitihani ifanyike.
Baada ya mitihani kwisha, wahadhiri wakajadiliana waitishe kikao mnamo tarehe 7 Julai 2011 saa 3 kamili asubuhi siku ambayo kimsingi ilikuwa ni mapumziko. Bw. Nhandi aliandika ujumbe wa simu kuwajulisha wahadhiri wenzake juu ya kikao.
Siku moja kabla ya kikao ambacho wahadhri walitarajia kufanya tarehe 7 Julai 2011, Bw. Nhandi alikwenda kuonana na Kaimu Mkuu wa Chuo, Dakta L. Mtahabwa ili kupata maoni yake juu ya mawazo ya wahadhiri yaliyowekwa kwenye maandishi. Mazungumzo yalichukua zaidi ya nusu saa na Kaimu Mkuu wa Chuo alishauri majibu ya bajeti yasubiriwe kutoka utawala wa Chuo Kikuu cha Dodoma (central administration). Kimsingi, Bw. Dotto Nhandi alimwelewa Kaimu Mkuu wa Chuo cha Elimu na hivyo kuondoka. Lakini kinyume na matarajio ya wengi Bw. Dotto Nhandi, siku hiyo hiyo, alipokea barua yenye kumb. Na. UDOM/COE/PCF11/2 (angalia kiambatanisho B) ikimwonya kwa tuhuma mbili: kuchochea wanataaluma kugoma (incitement) na kudharau mamlaka (insubordination) ya chuo.
Baada ya kupokea barua hiyo kwa mshangao na mshituko mkubwa, Bw. Dotto Nhandi aliwasiliana na viongozi wa UDOMASA na baadhi ya wahadhiri wa Chuo cha Elimu wakaitisha kikao ili kujiridhisha dhidi ya tuhuma alizopewa Bw. Dotto Nhandi. Kikao hicho kilijiridhisha kuwa mawazo yaliyoandikwa na Bw. Dotto Nhandi yalikuwa ni mawazo ya wahadhiri wote wa Chuo cha Elimu.
Kikao hicho kiliamua kwamba UDOMASA ifuatilie swala hilo na kuhakikisha barua hiyo ya onyo dhidi ya Bw. Dotto Nhandi inaondolewa kwenye faili kwa sababu ilitolewa kinyume na taratibu. Tarehe 13 Julai 2011 Bw. Dotto Nhandi aliandika barua ikiwa ni sehemu ya kukata rufaa na kupata fursa ya kujieleza na akapendekeza kuwa barua ya onyo iondolewe kwenye faili lake. Tarehe 14 Julai 2011 Kaimu Makamu Mkuu wa Chuo alijibu kwamba onyo linabaki pale pale na kumwomba Bw. Dotto Nhandi atumie ushauri huo siku zijazo.
Tarehe 20 Julai 2011 saa 5 asubuhi, Bw. Nhandi alipokea barua yenye kumb. Na. UDOM/AC/PCF-177/9 ya tarehe 15 Julai 2011 ikimtaka afike katika Kamati ya Nidhamu ya Chuo Kikuu cha Dodoma tarehe 21 Julai 2011 kwa ajili ya kujibu tuhuma za “Breaching Public Service Regulations 42 (1) (3); 65 (1) III (i, ii, v, and vii) pamoja na “Breaching section F.26 of the 2009 Standing Orders of Public Service”.
Mnamo tarehe 18 Agosti 2011 Bw. Dotto Nhandi alipokea barua ya kufukuzwa kazi ambayo ilitokana na maazimio ya Kikao Maalum cha Baraza la Chuo la tarehe 12 Agosti 2011.
Sababu za kupinga adhabu ya kufukuzwa kazi
1. Barua ya Kaimu Mkuu wa Chuo cha Elimu (kiambatanisho B) imekiuka sheria na. 6 ya mwaka 2004 ya ajira na mahusiano kazini; kanuni za utendaji bora za mwaka 2007 sehemu ya 6 ihusuyo mwongozo wa sera na taratibu za kushughulikia nidhamu sehemu ya 2 na 3 (T.S. Na. 42). Kimsingi Bw. Dotto Nhandi hakuwahi kupewea onyo kwa mdomo wala maelekezo yoyote kutoka kwa Kaimu Mkuu wa Chuo cha Elimu kama sheria inavyotaka kabla ya kupewa onyo kwa maandishi.
2. Onyo kwa maandishi kwa Bw. Dotto Nhandi lilikiuka sheria ya ajira na mahusiano kazini na kanuni zake T.S. Na. 42 mwaka 2007 ambazo zinamtaka meneja amtaarifu mwajiriwa sababu za hatua iliyochukuliwa na kumpatia mwajiriwa fursa ya kujieleza. Baada ya hapo meneja aamue kama atampatia au hatampatia mwajiriwa onyo kwa maandishi. Bw. Dotto Nhandi hakupata fursa ya kujieleza.
3. Hata Bw. Dotto Nhandi alipojaribu kutumia haki yake ya msingi kujieleza akiamini ameonewa na kushauri barua ya onyo aliyopewa iondolewe kwenye faili lake kwa sababu taratibu hazikuzingatiwa, alijibiwa kwamba onyo lipo pale pale. Pamoja na kumkumbusha Bw. Dotto Nhandi, Kaimu Mkuu wa Chuo cha Elimu aliendelea kuvunja sheria na kanuni zake (kanuni za utendaji bora) T. S. Na. 42 ya tarehe 16 Februari 2007.
Pia Bw. Dotto Nhandi, kupitia barua yake ya kujitetea dhidi ya onyo alilopewa, aliomba apatiwe barua ya kumtaka radhi kwa tuhuma nzito za uchochezi wa mgomo na kudharau mamlaka akiamini fika kwamba yaliyofanywa yalikuwa ni kwa ajili ya kujenga; na ikizingatiwa kwamba hakuna mahali hapo chuoni amani ilivunjika au uharibifu wowote kutokea. Hapa alikuwa akitumia haki yake ya msingi ya kujieleza na kujitetea kwa mujibu wa sheria. Hata hivyo, alijibiwa kuwa onyo lipo pale pale kupitia barua ya tarehe 14 Julai 2011.
4. Bw. Dotto Nhandi aliitwa kwenye kikao cha Kamati ya Nidhamu ya Chuo Kikuu cha Dodoma tarehe 21 Julai 2011 kupitia barua aliyopewa tarehe 20 Julai 2011 saa 5 kamili asubuhi. Hapa alinyimwa haki ya msingi (natural justice) ya kuweza kupata muda wa kutosha kwa ajili ya kuandaa utetezi wake. Sheria inataka angalau masaa 48. Kutokana na kunyimwa muda pia Bw. Dotto Nhandi alishindwa kwenda na shahidi wake kama sheria inavyotoa fursa hiyo.
5. Swala la Bw. Nhandi lilikwenda moja kwa moja kwenye Kamati ya Nidhamu pamoja na kwamba uongozi wa Chuo cha Elimu haukushauri swala hilo lifikishwe kwenye kamati hiyo. Barua iliyoandikwa tarehe 14 Julai 2011 na Kaimu Mkuu wa Chuo cha Elimu ikiwa ni majibu kwa Bw. Dotto Nhandi ilisisitiza kuwa onyo lilibaki pale pale na hakuna maelezo yoyote kwamba swala hili lingepelekwa katika Kamati ya Nidhamu. Swala la Bw. Nhandi halijajadiliwa na vikao husika vya Skuli au Chuo cha Elimu na hata hayajafika kwenye Kamati ya Rasilimali Watu kama ilivyo kwa wafanyakazi wengine.
Ikiwa Kaimu Mkuu wa Chuo cha Elimu aliridhika, kupitia barua yake yenye kumb. Na. UDOM/COE/PCF 11/2 ya tarehe 6 Julai 2011 kwenda kwa Bw. Dotto Nhandi; na hakuna kikao chochote ngazi ya Chuo cha Elimu kilichoomba swala la Bw. Dotto Nhandi lipelekwe kwenye Kamati ya Nidhamu, je nani aliyependekeza hatua hiyo? Hatutaki kuamini kuwa swala hili limeibuliwa kwa hila.
6. Kikao maalum cha Baraza la Chuo kilichofanyika tarehe 12 Agosti 2011, ambacho ndicho kiliridhia kufukuzwa kwa Bw. Dotto Nhandi, kilifanyika baada ya taarifa iliyotolewa muda mfupi sana kabla ya kikao chenyewe. Mwakilishi wa jumuiya ya wahadhiri, Bw. Paul Loisulie (0755210310) alipewa taarifa saa 3 asubuhi na kikao kikafanyika saa 4 asubuhi ya siku iyo hiyo. Hali hiyo pia ilinyima fursa ya kuandaa utetezi (natural justice) kwa ajili ya watu anaowawakilisha, Bw. Dotto Nhandi akiwa mmoja wao. Tunashawishika kuamini kwamba kikao hiki kimefanyika kwa hila na hivyo kuzuia natural justice.
7. a). Tarehe 18 Agosti 2011 Bw. Dotto Nhandi alipokea barua ya kufukuzwa kazi yenye kumb. Na. UDOM/AC/PCF-177/10 ya tarehe 15 Agosti 2011 akihukumiwa kwa kutotii mamlaka na hivyo kukiuka ‘First Schedule of the Public Service Regulation 42 (3) na kanuni za kudumu za utumishi wa umma na. F.27 (1) C. Kosa ambalo kimsingi Bw. Dotto Nhandi halikubali. Barua hiyo haionyeshi kuwa Bw. Dotto Nhandi alifukuzwa kwa kutumia vifungu gani vya adhabu au kwa kutumia sheria ipi.
b). Kwenye barua hiyo anaombwa alipe mkopo ambao dhamana yake ilikuwa ni ajira kwa maana ya mshahara na chuo kilidhamini kwa asilimia 100 iwapo angeshindwa kulipa. Bw. Dotto Nhandi hawajibiki kwa namna yoyote ile kulipa deni hilo kwa kuzingatia mkataba uliokuwepo kati ya chuo na benki husika (CRDB).
8. Kamati ya Utendaji ya THTU – UDOM imepitia vielelezo vyote ikiwemo barua ya kufukuzwa kazi na kuangalia taratibu zote zilizotumika kwa ufupi zinapingana na katiba ya Jamhuri ya Muungano wa Tanzania Ibara ya 22 na sheria na. 6 ya mwaka 2004 ya ajira na mahusiano kazini na kanuni zake.
Ushauri na mapendekezo
1. Uongozi wa THTU tawi la UDOM na uongozi wa UDOMASA unafanya jitihada za kukutana na mwenyekiti wa Baraza la Chuo kuona kama kuna uwezekano wa kutengua adhabu hii. Hii ni njia mojawapo ya kidiplomasia ingawa haipo kwa mujibu wa sheria.
2. Wakati tukiendelea na shauri la awali, tunaiomba THTU makao makuu, kupitia mwanasheria wake Dakta Sengondo Mvungi, itusaidie kulifikisha swala hili kwenye Baraza la Usuluhishi kwa mujibu wa sheria ya kazi Na. 6 ya 2004 sehemu ya 86.
3. Ikiwa hatutafanikiwa na mazungumzo na mwenyekiti wa Baraza la Chuo, tutamsaidia Bw. Dotto Nhandi kukata rufaa kwenye kamati ya rufaa ya Chuo Kikuu cha Dodoma.
4. Ikiwa hakuna mafanikio hata katika Baraza la Usuluhishi, tunaomba na tumejiandaa swala hili lipelekwe katika mahakama ya kazi kama inavyoelezwa na sheria ya ajira na mahusiano kazini sehemu ya 94.
5. Tunaamini kwa dhati kabisa kuwa haki itatendeka kwenye moja ya mapendekezo hapo juu. Hata hivyo, tupo tayari swala hili lipelekwe hata mahakama ya rufaa ikiwa hatua zote za chini zitashindikana.
Tunataka haki itendeke na ionekane kuwa imetendeka.
NIA NA MWELEKEO WETU DAIMA NI KUJENGA
Nawasilisha,
Iddy Mwerangi
Mwenyekiti – THTU UDOM
Saturday, September 3, 2011
THTU Historical Background
THTU stands for The Tanzania Higher Learning Institutions Trade Union. It is an organisation registered on the 12th December 2008 (Reg. No. 23) under the Tanzania Trade Union Registration Act. THTU is a successor to an informal joint committee that operated from 1998 to 2008 among Tanzanian public universities whose main purpose was to coordinate efforts to get the Government of Tanzania to improve the working environment within Tanzanian Universities. The Joint Committee of Leaders' successful petitioning of the Government in 2005 lead to the formation of a high powered presidential committee that looked into the problems facing public universities,
THTU was established primarily to provide a national forum for Higher Learning Institutions' workers to deliberate on matters that affect workers welfare, Institutional welfare, productivity and broader community interests that impinge on their ability to participate effectively in national development. In line with higher learning institutions desire to inculcate democratic values among the Tanzanian people THTU is organised from the Bottom Up in manner that allows the grassroots branches to have effective voice in the Union. In departure from other trade union's THTU retains retirees as associate members.
THTU was established primarily to provide a national forum for Higher Learning Institutions' workers to deliberate on matters that affect workers welfare, Institutional welfare, productivity and broader community interests that impinge on their ability to participate effectively in national development. In line with higher learning institutions desire to inculcate democratic values among the Tanzanian people THTU is organised from the Bottom Up in manner that allows the grassroots branches to have effective voice in the Union. In departure from other trade union's THTU retains retirees as associate members.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)