Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 2014, Publication: 103rd ILC session (2014)



A Government representative emphasized that before a new minimum wage was fixed, there was a need for a comprehensive study on wage trends in different economic sectors, which should include an analysis of employment trends, the cost of living and wage trends by profession and geographical region. Fixing a minimum wage without regard to those factors could destabilize Uganda’s macroeconomic framework and affect employment trends. The Government had prepared a paper to reactivate the Minimum Wages Advisory Board for submission to Cabinet; Cabinet was expected to have approved the new Wages Board by September 2014. Once approved, the Wages Board should complete its work within six months and submit its recommendation to Cabinet by the end of April 2015. Cabinet was expected to have considered the recommendation by June 2015, and the new minimum wage was to be implemented by July 2015. His Government was ready to follow the recommendation of the Committee of Experts, and looked forward to receiving financial and technical assistance from the ILO in order to complete the wage-fixing process in a manner beneficial to workers, employers and the Government.

The Worker members stated that the Committee of Experts had been highlighting for years several serious shortcomings mainly related to the freezing of the minimum wage since 1984, a situation justified by the “non-reactivation of the Minimum Wages Board”. In this connection, the Committee of Experts had recalled that “the fundamental objective of the Convention, which is to ensure to workers a minimum wage that guarantees a decent standard of living for them and their families, cannot be meaningfully attained unless minimum wages are periodically reviewed to take account of changes in the cost of living and other economic conditions. … When minimum rates of pay are left to lose most of their value so that they ultimately bear no relationship with the real needs of the workers, minimum wage fixing is reduced to a mere formality void of any substance.” Each year, the Committee of Experts observed that the Government did not respond to its repeated requests. The Worker members regretted that, while the Government had announced in June 2013 the initiation of a process of identification of persons that could be appointed to the Minimum Wages Board and the continuation of a study, no information on new developments had been received since. It appeared that the Government did not intend to adjust wages as long as the exploitation of oil and gas did not benefit the country. In the Worker members’ view, the question of the composition of the Minimum Wages Board was only an unacceptable pretext. They also referred to the Hours of Work (Commerce and Offices) Convention, 1930 (No. 30), according to which the wage-fixing body should take account of the necessity of enabling workers to maintain a suitable standard of living; provision should be made for the review of the minimum rates of wages fixed when requested by the workers or employers who are members of such a body; and provision should be made for the inclusion in the wage-fixing body of one or more independent persons and, as far as possible, of women among the workers’ representatives and the independent persons. The Worker members denounced that the Government sought to evade its obligations under the Convention by simply taking no action to ensure that the body referred to in Recommendation No. 30 was functional. Furthermore, the Worker members recalled that the Convention also required to consult the social partners and suggested that consultations could be arranged in a less formal but nonetheless effective manner. Referring to the examples of good practices cited in the 2014 General Survey as regards the publication of minimum wages in the Official Journal (Gambia, Guatemala, Kenya, Slovakia, United Republic of Tanzania and Tunisia), the Worker members highlighted that publication constituted a substantial formality. The objective of the Convention, which had given birth to other Conventions, such as the Minimum Wage Fixing Convention, 1970 (No. 131), was that all categories of workers would be covered by a minimum wage. For the majority of Ugandan workers, the current salary was not enough to live decently. Compliance with the provisions of the Convention and the introduction of a minimum wage, reviewed according to appropriate mechanisms, would enable those workers, including women (especially those in the informal sector), to live better. The Worker members therefore requested the Government to comply with the provisions of the Conventions and refrain from using inappropriate arguments to evade its obligations. Emphasizing the link between human rights and human dignity, the Worker members stressed that this was the only way to promote economic growth and stimulate the local economy.

The Employer members recalled the history of the Committee of Experts’ examination of the case between 2006 and 2013. In the course of that examination, the Committee of Experts had been concerned about the inactivity of the Minimum Wages Board. That inactivity had resulted in a national minimum wage rate which had remained unadjusted since 1984, and the Committee of Experts had repeatedly requested the Government to take action to reactivate the Board. The Committee of Experts, however, had expressed its regret due to the absence of follow-up action taken by the Government, apart from its indication that a process of identifying the persons to be appointed to the Board had commenced, which had not been followed up. The Employer members expressed their concern about the lack of government action on minimum wage fixing and urged the Government to take prompt action in order to ensure the reinstitution and proper functioning of the minimum wage fixing machinery in accordance with the Convention, without further delay. They encouraged the Government to avail itself of the technical assistance of the Office and to carry out its work for reactivating the minimum wage fixing machinery in full consultation with the social partners.

The Worker member of Uganda stated that the minimum wage fixing machinery, established under the 1964 Minimum Wages Advisory Board and Wages Councils Act, had reviewed the minimum wage until 1984, when it had adopted a rate of 6,000 Uganda shillings (UGX) per month (approximately US$2.3). Since then, it had not made any further review. While the Government and Employer members argued that a minimum wage would deter investors, the neighbouring countries with higher minimum wage rates had attracted more investors. The Minimum Wages Advisory Board was established under the General Notice No. 176 in 1995. In 1998, upon the urging of the workers in the country, a study had been conducted and the Minimum Wages Advisory Council had recommended an inter-industry rate of UGX58,000 (approximately US$25), but that was rejected. Since then, that machinery was no longer in place. The absence of minimum wage fixing machinery meant the weak implementation of the spirit and letter of the National Constitution and development policies, and the abuse of human rights and the worsening of the plights of women. The Ugandan National Constitution provided that all Ugandans had a right to a life in dignity. The National Development Plan of Uganda identified the maintenance of a minimum wage as a critical step to increase access to gainful employment, tackle inequality and stimulate growth. The minimum wage was also a human rights issue, as affirmed in article 23 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The current stagnant minimum wage of UGX6,000 presented a clear violation of workers’ rights. Similarly, the absence of minimum wage fixing machinery had increased exploitation and discrimination against workers, especially those in the informal economy. Reports indicated that 50 per cent of employed women worked in the three lowest-paying economic sectors: agriculture; household; and mining and quarrying. The workers in the country had petitioned the Speaker of Parliament in 2000 for an intervention on this matter. A bill on the re-adjustment of the minimum wage rate had been tabled, debated and subsequently passed, but had never become law because the President had refused to assent to it. Uganda was one of the poorest countries in the world with a large part of its population living below the poverty threshold of US$1.2 a day. Social protection provisions were limited only to some sections of formal employment. Therefore, for most persons, labour was their main asset and income source. The lack of a process to set minimum wages had left workers vulnerable to exploitation; a minimum wage would protect the most vulnerable workers.

The Employer member of Uganda expressed appreciation for the comments made by the Government and the Worker member from Uganda. The Government’s attempts to revise the minimum wage in 1995 had been unsuccessful. Since then, the Government had attempted to reconstitute the Minimum Wages Board and had asked the social partners to submit nominations to that effect, but unfortunately the Board had not been re-established. Uganda had experienced economic challenges, especially when the interim Government had come into power, but many of those challenges had been overcome and the country was now realizing a growth in GDP. She expressed her hope that the Government would follow through on the commitments it had made before the Committee concerning its renewed efforts and that it would report on the positive results.

The Worker member of Kenya compared the situation of Uganda to that of Kenya, where minimum wages assisted workers in both the formal and informal economies. In Uganda, 24.5 per cent of people lived below the national poverty line, 56 per cent of people worked in the informal economy and 36 per cent of the labour force reportedly constituted the working poor. Cane cutters, for example, earned UGX120,000 (approximately US$46.9), while others were paid less. Some had to work overtime or take on additional responsibilities at the expense of their health and family time. In contrast, plantations earned an excess of US$100 million per year and had assets of US$375 million. The income of the cane cutters, as well as other workers such as home and business cleaners, domestic workers, food vendors, construction site porters and radio journalists, usually did not amount to US$3 per day and was not liveable. Families continued to disintegrate owing to the mobilization of children to support family earnings, and clearly, the absence of a minimum wage exacerbated the practice of child labour and the worst forms of child labour. She echoed the request of the Committee of Experts that the Government move without delay to put into motion the process to establish the appropriate minimum wage fixing machinery.

The Worker member of Congo expressed his concern over the level of the minimum wage in Uganda. The Committee of Experts had repeatedly noted that, to play its part in social policy, the minimum wage should not be allowed to fall below a socially acceptable level and should retain its purchasing power in terms of a basket of basic consumer goods. However, the cost of living had increased significantly in Uganda, which continued to be one of the poorest countries in the world, without the Government doing anything during the past 30 years to remedy such an unjust situation. The Government should revive the Minimum Wages Board without further delay.

The Worker member of Brazil recalled that, as indicated in the report of the Committee of Experts, the minimum wage rate had not been readjusted since 1984. In its re-ports, the Government had indicated that it had only just initiated the process of identifying the social partner members to be appointed to the Minimum Wages Board, and that a paper, the subject of which was unknown, had been prepared for submission to the competent authority. Apparently, after 30 years without a readjustment, even the social partners to be appointed had not yet been identified. The report of the Government was a clear demonstration of its profound lack of interest in fulfilling its obligations under the Convention. The minimum wage was a significant tool for combating poverty, distributing income and creating employment and, consequently, for boosting the economy, especially in southern countries. In all countries in which an effective policy on revaluation of the minimum wage was implemented, its effectiveness could be seen not only as a driver for economic develop-ment but also as a key instrument for decent job creation. The way in which the Government had dealt with the matter was concerning. The Committee should therefore urge the Government to afford the necessary importance to the matter, follow up on the consultative process as a matter of urgency, and take effective measures to fix a national minimum wage which was adjusted to the needs of Uganda.

The Worker member of Nigeria recalled that, since Uganda’s Minimum Wage Order had been enacted in 1950, real efforts to advance wage regulations had failed. Previous efforts to put minimum wage fixing machinery in place had been well over 20 years ago, in 1984. The Government had continued to ignore the spirit and letter of the Convention, leaving workers without the protection of wage regulation mechanisms. The national economic situation showed that there was an urgency to assist those who were working and living in poverty from further hardship. According to the current GDP, consumer price index statistics and food inflation rate statistics, the economy was doing well, and yet many workers were not able to buy food for themselves or their family members. A 2013 ILO study showed that, in 2005, slightly over 50 per cent of waged and salaried workers in Uganda were poor, with 30 per cent living in extreme poverty. That situation had worsened owing to the effects of the financial and economic crises. A 2009–10 Labour Market Survey indicated that of the 24.4 per cent of the population who were living below the poverty line, 21 per cent were classified as “working poor” who earned a median monthly income of UGX50,000 (approximately US$20). The Government had reportedly refused the demands of the organized labour community to establish, without further delay, the necessary minimum wage fixing machinery, had deliberately stalled a 2012 attempt by the workers to place a minimum wage bill in Parliament and had even arrested workers’ leaders for demanding to be included in the composition of the Minimum Wages Board. That situation should not continue, and the Committee should extract a firm and time-bound commitment from the Government on the constitution of a minimum wage fixing machinery.

The Government representative reaffirmed that the Government was taking steps to ensure that it complied with the requirements of the Convention, although there remained problems with a lack of technical and financial support. The process would go ahead, with or without ILO technical assistance. That previous year, the Government had signed a new tripartite charter with the stakeholders, with whom the Government was now working in cooperation. The stakeholders had made their sub-missions regarding representation on the Minimum Wages Board, which the Government was currently considering. Contrary to the statement of the Worker member of Uganda, the Government did not consider that the mini-mum wage would deter investors. Rather, the Government had been cautious owing to the level of unemployment. Efforts had been made to address the issue of unemployment by formulating policies and instruments that had ensured increased numbers of jobs, including, for example, youth employment programmes which aimed to reduce youth unemployment. It was also not true that some workers had been arrested for raising issues concerning minimum wages, nor was it accurate that the population was living below the poverty line as a result of not having a minimum wage. On the contrary, the situation had been improving, with the GDP increasing since the 1990s. The Government expressed its commitment that, by July 2015, the process of having minimum wage fixing machinery in place would be concluded.

The Employer members expressed their appreciation for the Government’s commitment to reinstituting the mini-mum wage fixing machinery by July 2015. The Commit-tee’s conclusions should reflect the Government’s commitment, indicate its concern about the lack of government action up to now, recommend that the Government’s action be in accordance with the Convention and in full consultation with the social partners, and refer to the use of the technical assistance of the Office.

The Worker members noted that the Government was again planning to delay re-establishing the wage-fixing machinery until September 2015, but it needed to stop providing excuses to avoid fulfilling its obligation to set a minimum wage. It should live up to the commitments it had made to the Conference Committee and, without further delay, arrange for the Minimum Wages Board to progress with its work. The Government should therefore request ILO assistance and then submit a progress report to the Committee of Experts in 2015.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2023, published 112nd ILC session (2024)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2022, published 111st ILC session (2023)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2021, published 110th ILC session (2022)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2018, published 108th ILC session (2019)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2016, published 106th ILC session (2017)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2014, published 104th ILC session (2015)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2013, published 103rd ILC session (2014)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2012, published 102nd ILC session (2013)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2011, published 101st ILC session (2012)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2010, published 100th ILC session (2011)

The Committee notes with regret that the Government’s report has not been received. It must therefore repeat its previous observation which read as follows:

Articles 1–4 of the Convention. Minimum wage fixing machinery. The Committee trusts that the Government will supply detailed information in its next report on the application of all the provisions of the Convention in the light of the Employment Act, 2006. The Committee also requests the Government to send available data concerning changes in the minimum wage and the rate of inflation, and also the average wage by branch of activity and occupation.

The Committee hopes that the Government will make every effort to take the necessary action in the near future.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2009, published 99th ILC session (2010)

The Committee notes with regret that the Government’s report has not been received. It must therefore repeat its previous observation which read as follows:

Articles 1–4 of the Convention. Minimum wage fixing machinery. The Committee trusts that the Government will supply detailed information in its next report on the application of all the provisions of the Convention in the light of the Employment Act, 2006. The Committee also requests the Government to reply to its previous observation and in particular to send available data concerning changes in the minimum wage and the rate of inflation, and also the average wage by branch of activity and occupation.

The Committee hopes that the Government will make every effort to take the necessary action in the very near future.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2008, published 98th ILC session (2009)

The Committee notes that the Government’s report has not been received. It must therefore repeat its previous observation which read as follows:

The Committee notes the adoption of the Employment Act, 2006. The Committee trusts that the Government will supply detailed information in its next report on the application of all the provisions of the Convention. The Committee also requests the Government to reply to its previous observation and in particular to send available data concerning changes in the minimum wage and the rate of inflation, and also the average wage by branch of activity and occupation.

The Committee hopes that the Government will make every effort to take the necessary action in the very near future.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2007, published 97th ILC session (2008)

The Committee notes that the Government’s report has not been received. It also notes the adoption of the Employment Act, 2006, which it will examine at its next session. The Committee trusts that the Government will supply detailed information in its next report on the application of all the provisions of the Convention. The Committee also requests the Government to reply to its previous observation and in particular to send available data concerning changes in the minimum wage and the rate of inflation, and also the average wage by branch of activity and occupation.

[The Government is asked to report in detail in 2008.]

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2006, published 96th ILC session (2007)

The Committee notes the information provided in the Government’s report, in particular the statistical data concerning the average monthly wage by industrial sector and occupation. It also notes that, according to the Government’s report, the national minimum wage has not been adjusted since 1984 and currently stands at 6,000 Uganda shillings (approximately US$3.30) per month. The Committee notes that, according to some accounts, the Minimum Wages Board had adopted in 1997 through tripartite consultations its report containing its recommendations on a national minimum wage, which was subsequently submitted to Cabinet, but no substantive action appears to have been taken since.

In this connection, the Committee recalls that the fundamental objective of the Convention, which is to ensure to workers a minimum wage that guarantees a decent standard of living for them and their families, cannot be meaningfully attained unless minimum wages are periodically reviewed to take account of changes in the cost of living and other economic conditions. The Committee has consistently taken the view that when minimum rates of pay are left to lose most of their value so that they ultimately bear no relationship with the real needs of the workers, minimum wage fixing is reduced to a mere formality void of any substance. The Committee therefore requests the Government to indicate the measures it intends to take to ensure that the minimum wage rate in force fulfils a meaningful role in social policy, which implies that it should not be allowed to fall below a socially acceptable “subsistence level” and that it should maintain its purchasing power in relation to a basic basket of essential consumer goods. The Committee also requests the Government to keep it informed of any further developments concerning the funding and operation of the Minimum Wages Board, especially as regards the consultation and participation of the most representative employers’ and workers’ organizations.

With reference to the recently enacted Employment Act, 2006, the Committee would appreciate receiving a copy. It would also be grateful if the Government could continue to supply information on the practical application of the Convention, including up to date statistics on the number of workers remunerated at the minimum wage rate, extracts from inspection reports showing the number of infringements of minimum wage legislation and sanctions imposed, as well as any other particulars which would enable the Committee to better understand the difficulties encountered or the progress achieved by the Government in discharging its obligations under the Convention.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2005, published 95th ILC session (2006)

The Committee notes with regret that the Government’s report has not been received. It hopes that a report will be supplied for examination by the Committee at its next session and that it will contain full information on the matters raised in its previous direct request, which read as follows:

Article 1 of the Convention, in conjunction with Article 5 and Part V of the report form. According to the Government, the last Minimum Wages Advisory Board was appointed in 1995 and it submitted its report in July 1996 to the Government for appropriate action. The Government issued a statutory instrument to enforce the minimum wage. However, there are other labour laws such as the Employment Decree No. 4 of 1975 and its regulations No. 41 of 1977 which are to enforce the minimum wage. In addition, the Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare has a network of labour officers and labour inspectors to monitor among others the observance of the minimum wage.

The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the results of inspections carried out with respect to the enforcement of the minimum wage regulations (e.g. the number of violations of minimum wage provisions, the penalties imposed, etc.). It also asks the Government to provide other general information on the application of the Convention in practice, such as the minimum wage rate(s) in force, the available data on the number and different categories of workers covered by minimum wage provisions, etc.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2004, published 93rd ILC session (2005)

The Committee notes with regret that the Government’s report has not been received. It hopes that a report will be supplied for examination by the Committee at its next session and that it will contain full information on the matters raised in its previous direct request, which read as follows:

Article 1 of the Convention, in conjunction with Article 5 and Part V of the report form. According to the Government, the last Minimum Wages Advisory Board was appointed in 1995 and it submitted its report in July 1996 to the Government for appropriate action. The Government issued a statutory instrument to enforce the minimum wage. However, there are other labour laws such as the Employment Decree No. 4 of 1975 and its regulations No. 41 of 1977 which are to enforce the minimum wage. In addition, the Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare has a network of labour officers and labour inspectors to monitor among others the observance of the minimum wage.

The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the results of inspections carried out with respect to the enforcement of the minimum wage regulations (e.g. the number of violations of minimum wage provisions, the penalties imposed, etc.). It also asks the Government to provide other general information on the application of the Convention in practice, such as the minimum wage rate(s) in force, the available data on the number and different categories of workers covered by minimum wage provisions, etc.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2003, published 92nd ILC session (2004)

The Committee notes with regret that the Government’s report has not been received. It hopes that a report will be supplied for examination by the Committee at its next session and that it will contain full information on the matters raised in its previous direct request, which read as follows:

Article 1 of the Convention, in conjunction with Article 5 and Part V of the report form. According to the Government, the last Minimum Wages Advisory Board was appointed in 1995 and it submitted its report in July 1996 to the Government for appropriate action. The Government issued a statutory instrument to enforce the minimum wage. However, there are other labour laws such as the Employment Decree No. 4 of 1975 and its regulations No. 41 of 1977 which are to enforce the minimum wage. In addition, the Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare has a network of labour officers and labour inspectors to monitor among others the observance of the minimum wage.

The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the results of inspections carried out with respect to the enforcement of the minimum wage regulations (e.g. the number of violations of minimum wage provisions, the penalties imposed, etc.). It also asks the Government to provide other general information on the application of the Convention in practice, such as the minimum wage rate(s) in force, the available data on the number and different categories of workers covered by minimum wage provisions, etc.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2002, published 91st ILC session (2003)

The Committee notes that the Government’s report has not been received. It hopes that a report will be supplied for examination by the Committee at its next session and that it will contain full information on the matters raised in its previous direct request, which read as follows:

Article 1 of the Convention, in conjunction with Article 5 and Part V of the report form. According to the Government, the last Minimum Wages Advisory Board was appointed in 1995 and it submitted its report in July 1996 to the Government for appropriate action. The Government issued a statutory instrument to enforce the minimum wage. However, there are other labour laws such as the Employment Decree No. 4 of 1975 and its regulations No. 41 of 1977 which are to enforce the minimum wage. In addition, the Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare has a network of labour officers and labour inspectors to monitor among others the observance of the minimum wage.

The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the results of inspections carried out with respect to the enforcement of the minimum wage regulations (e.g. the number of violations of minimum wage provisions, the penalties imposed, etc.). It also asks the Government to provide other general information on the application of the Convention in practice, such as the minimum wage rate(s) in force, the available data on the number and different categories of workers covered by minimum wage provisions, etc.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1998, published 87th ILC session (1999)

The Committee notes the information supplied in the Government's report in reply to its previous comments.

Article 1 of the Convention, in conjunction with Article 5 and point V of the report form. According to the Government, the last Minimum Wages Advisory Board was appointed in 1995 and it submitted its report in July 1996 to the Government for appropriate action. The Government issued a statutory instrument to enforce the minimum wage. However, there are other labour laws such as the Employment Decree No. 4 of 1975 and its regulations No. 41 of 1977 which are to enforce the minimum wage. In addition, the Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare has a network of labour officers and labour inspectors to monitor among others the observance of the minimum wage.

The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the results of inspections carried out with respect to the enforcement of the minimum wage regulations (e.g. the number of violations of minimum wage provisions, the penalties imposed, etc.). It also asks the Government to provide other general information on the application of the Convention in practice, such as the minimum wage rate(s) in force, the available data on the number and different categories of workers covered by minimum wage provisions, etc.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1993, published 80th ILC session (1993)

The Committee notes the Government's indication in the report that the Minimum Wage Board appointed to set minimum wages has not been operational since 1984. The Government refers to the high rate of inflation which would render any recommended minimum wage obsolete within a short time, and to structural adjustment programmes, as reasons for the difficulty. It further states that a minimum wage has been directly negotiated between workers and employers and that, according to available information, most establishments or industries are capable of paying a higher minimum compared to that in the government sector.

The Committee notes the above information. It recalls that by ratifying this Convention, a member State undertakes to create or maintain a minimum wage fixing machinery for workers in certain of the trades or parts of trades "in which no arrangements exist for the effective regulation of wages by collective agreement or otherwise and wages are exceptionally low" (Article 1(1) of the Convention).

The Committee also refers to paragraphs 428 and 429 of its General Survey of 1992 on Minimum Wages, in which it indicated that the fundamental objective of the instruments examined was to ensure to workers a minimum wage that would provide a satisfactory standard of living for them and their families, and that this objective should constantly be borne in mind, in particular, when structural adjustment programmes are being applied.

The Committee requests the Government to indicate any measures taken or contemplated to re-establish or create a minimum wage fixing machinery in accordance with the requirements of the Convention, and to provide information on the consultation and participation of the employers' and workers' organizations in this regard.