Zimbabwe's labour landscape underwent a significant and painful transformation following the Supreme Court's landmark ruling in Nyamande & Another v Zuva Petroleum (SC 43/15) in July 2015. This judgment reaffirmed an employer's common-law right to terminate employment on notice, leading to an immediate and widespread loss of tens of thousands of jobs as companies swiftly invoked this right. The repercussions were so severe that lawmakers were compelled to intervene, amending the Labour Act to mitigate the impact. While the legal position has since evolved, the shock of 2015 instilled a lasting lesson: even legally defensible processes can yield punitive outcomes for workers, particularly in a weak economy with scarce job opportunities.

The term "restructuring," though a legitimate business tool designed to ensure organizational survival amidst market contractions, technological shifts, or rising costs, has become emotionally charged in Zimbabwe. Workers and unions increasingly view it as a mechanism to diminish collective bargaining power, often presenting job cuts as neutral and unavoidable. This perception stems from a fear that restructuring processes, while appearing "clean" on paper, are often predetermined, with genuine consultation lacking, and those who voice concerns being the most vulnerable to removal. This mistrust is deeply rooted in Zimbabwe's recent labour history, where formal legal protections have not always translated into swift and practical relief for employees.

Zimbabwe's Labour Act is designed to prevent retrenchment from being a casual administrative decision. Section 12C explicitly outlines a framework intended to compel consultation and curb abuse, requiring written notice and engagement through workplace or sector structures, with the Retrenchment Board playing a pivotal role. Significant reforms have been introduced, including the Labour Amendment Act (Act 11 of 2023), which refined aspects of the retrenchment process and package structuring. Further operational detail was provided by the Labour (Retrenchment) Regulations, 2024 (SI 191 of 2024), gazetted in December 2024, which introduced standard forms, timing requirements, and mandated the Retrenchment Board to issue notification certificates within specified timeframes. These reforms acknowledge the crucial need for timely remedies to prevent workers from falling into prolonged financial uncertainty.

Despite these procedural advancements, a persistent tension exists between procedural compliance and substantive fairness. Workers often perceive the "problem" not as restructuring itself, but as its packaging: the arrival of consultants, the introduction of new organograms, and the disproportionate impact on those closest to workplace representation. While difficult to substantiate without internal evidence, this pattern has gained traction due to widely reported major restructurings in both public and private sectors, fueling a pervasive sense of job insecurity. Examples abound, from Air Zimbabwe's 2017 decision to cut half its workforce due to financial distress, where the operational rationale was clear, to the National Railways of Zimbabwe's impending retrenchment of 1,400 employees in 2016, which the Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions controversially labeled as "victimisation."

The banking sector has also seen high-profile restructurings framed as strategic realignments. In February 2025, CBZ Holdings reportedly retrenched 347 employees to align strategy with an evolving business landscape. Steward Bank linked staff reductions to digitization and systems upgrades, a global trend where automation displaces labour-intensive roles. In these cases, the fairness test hinges on transparent handling, clear criteria, and proper consultation, rather than the process being perceived as a quiet removal of "problem employees." The retail sector, exemplified by OK Zimbabwe's store closures and head office reductions in late 2025 due to competitive pressures, liquidity issues, and exchange-rate instability, underscores that genuine business distress can necessitate restructuring, even if social consequences are harsh.

In an economy like Zimbabwe's, where unemployment represents a "cliff edge" rather than a transition, the fear accompanying restructuring is palpable. This fear significantly influences workplace behaviour, making employees less likely to file grievances, demand minutes, or assert collective bargaining rights. Consequently, restructuring can have a secondary impact: thinning workplace representation and discouraging collective action, even without explicit anti-union directives. This dynamic is not unique to Zimbabwe, as evidenced by international comparisons such as the UK's "fire and rehire" controversies leading to a statutory Code of Practice, and intense scrutiny of anti-union tactics in the US.

Zimbabwe's specific challenge lies in the critical role of oversight capacity and dispute-resolution speed in making rights a lived reality rather than a mere paper promise. To reduce the suspicion that restructuring is used to undermine unions, it is crucial not to criminalize it, but to make the process provable. This entails employers clearly publishing testable selection criteria, thoroughly documenting consultations, and ensuring that redundancy decisions precede any rehiring into functionally identical, albeit renamed, roles. Unions, in turn, must bolster their internal accountability with transparent mandates, clear member reporting, and a willingness to document and litigate instances where procedure masks unfairness. Learning from international models like works councils and codetermination, where worker voice is institutionally embedded, could also strengthen consultation processes.

Ultimately, while businesses face genuine operational pressures from currency instability, demand compression, and policy risks, economic hardship does not absolve them of the legal and moral obligation to conduct restructuring in good faith, with meaningful consultation and demonstrable fairness. A truly legitimate restructuring must be explainable by evidence, consistent in its criteria, and defensible long after any press statements fade. Without such rigor, workers will continue to interpret restructuring notices not as recovery plans, but as ominous warnings of who will be isolated next.