collective bargaining agreementconstitutional validityfreedom of associationproperty rightsreferral procedure
Tags
collective bargaining agreementconstitutional referrallabour law
legislation
Statutes Cited
Constitution of Zimbabwe
Labour Act
Constitution of Zimbabwe (former)
Constitution of Zimbabwe, 2013
Constitution of Zimbabwe, 2013
ai analysis
Case Summary
Key Issues
{"issue_text":"Whether section 82(1)(a) of the Labour Act and sections 2(a), 33 and 36 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement violated constitutional rights","issue_type":"constitutional","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"NetOne's non-participation in CBA creation, compulsory dues payment, registration requirements"}
{"issue_text":"Whether the matter was properly referred to the Constitutional Court under section 175(4)","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Supreme Court's consent referral, nature of questions referred"}
This summary was generated by AI. Use Zalari to read the full judgment.
background
Facts of the Case
Background
NetOne Cellular challenged the constitutionality of certain provisions of a Collective Bargaining Agreement for the Communications and Allied Services Industry, arguing they violated its constitutional rights to freedom of association and protection of property. The High Court struck down sections 2(a), 33 and 36 of the CBA but upheld section 82(1)(a) of the Labour Act. On appeal, the Supreme Court referred constitutional questions to the Constitutional Court.
Read the full judgment, get AI analysis, and find related cases