disciplinary action. The bank allegedly dismissed 365 striking employees, who were obliged to reapply for their jobs and accept temporary contracts with lower terms and conditions. 199. The Government clarified that the disposal order was issued pursuant to the Labour Relations Act, 1996, and that a case concerning the facts was still before the High Court. It further explained that the Labour Relations Act allowed for voluntary or compulsory arbitration; here, three grievances had been resolved during four meetings between the parties, and the parties had agreed that the one remaining matter should be referred to compulsory arbitration. The Government argued that the employees went on strike despite this agreement. The disposal order, which had been issued after a hearing at the Ministry, was sent to the employees by the bank, with a request that they return to work within two days, or disciplinary action would be taken. 200. The Committee recommended amendments to the Labour Relations Act, and the reinstatement of the dismissed workers. The case was followed up by the Committee until 2007. A 1999 Labour Relations Tribunal order to reinstate 211 workers 120 was overturned by the Supreme Court in 2000 despite it having upheld the substantive decision; 121 in 2001, the Committee was advised that a settlement agreement had been reached to the satisfaction of the workers and employers. 122 In 2003, noting with interest that the provisions of the Labour Relations Act concerning compulsory arbitration had been amended, the Committee recommended further amendments to ensure that workers could take industrial action in relation to social and economic policy, that imprisonment for peaceful strikes was not possible, and that sanctions were proportionate to the seriousness of the infringements in the case of illegal strikes. 123 201. In 1999, a complaint was brought by the ZCTU alleging serious violations of human and trade union rights in 1997 and 1998 (Case No. 2027). The ZCTU alleged that the police violently intervened in mass demonstrations on 9 December 1997, injuring scores of people in the ensuing confusion and stampede. Further allegations concerned an assault on the Secretary General in union offices on 11 December 1997 and arson in the union’s western region offices on 5 March 1998; neither of these events resulted in a conviction by the courts. Finally, the complainants alleged that in November 1998 the President used the Presidential Powers (Temporary Measures) Act to declare all industrial action illegal, including a proposed ZCTU stay-away on 27 November 1998. 202. The Government replied that the police had intervened in the mass demonstrations in 1997 on account of looting. It further stated that a person charged in relation to the assault on the ZCTU’s Secretary General had been found not guilty, and that an arrest docket had been issued in relation to the arson. The Government explained that the prohibition on industrial action was due to ZCTU actions that were crippling the economy, despite an existing agreement between the social partners. It pointed out that the order in question had expired on 27 May 1999 and had not been renewed. Finally, the Government indicated that the ZCTU’s 120 320th Report of the Committee on Freedom of Association, Official Bulletin, Vol. LXXXIII, 2000, Series B, No. 1. 121 323rd Report of the Committee on Freedom of Association, Official Bulletin, Vol. LXXXIII, 2000, Series B, No. 3. 122 326th Report of the Committee on Freedom of Association, Official Bulletin, Vol. LXXXIV, 2001, Series B, No. 3. 123 331st Report of the Committee on Freedom of Association, Official Bulletin, Vol. LXXXVI, 2003, Series B, No. 2. 60 Meetings-2009-Zimbabwe C of I-2009-12-0035-3-En.doc/v3