Regulating Platform Work in Zimbabwe: Gig Workers Under Zimbabwe’s Labour Act [Chapter 28:01]

1. INTRODUCTION

Technological advancements have made a profound transformation in global labour markets[1] and Zimbabwe is no exception[2]. The rapid proliferation of digital labor platforms particularly in ride hailing services, delivery services and online freelancing has fundamentally disrupted traditional employment relationships[3]. This platform based model of work commonly referred to as the “gig economy” is characterized by tasks based flexible and platform mediated work[4]

This article argues that Zimbabwe‘s primary labour legislation the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01] hereinafter referred to as the Act. Is inadequate in protecting gig workers. Through an analysis of the statutory definition of an “employee”, the applicable common law tests and the comparative jurisprudence. This article demonstrates the urgent need for judicial innovation and targeted legislative reform address the digital formalization of labour in Zimbabwe.

2. CONCEPTUALIZING THE GIG ECONOMY IN THE ZIMBABWEAN CONTEXT

The gig economy is a labour market characterized by the prevalence of short-term contract of freelance work as opposed to permanent jobs by digital platforms connect savers providers with clients[5].Gig work is commonly described as temporary, flexible and freelance work arrangements that are challenging long-standing notions of employment[6]

In Zimbabwe this gig economy encompasses ride hailing drivers for platforms like Bolt and Indrive, freelance web designers, content creators, and consultants amongst others[7]

3. THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROMISE AND STATUTORY HURDLE

The foundational promise of worker protection in Zimbabwe is found in section 65 (1) of the constitution[8]provides that

’Every person has the right to fair and safe labour practices and standards and to be paid a fair and reasonable wage”

The deliberate use of “every person”rather than “every employee” suggest an abroad protective ambit intended to cover various work arrangements. This constitutional right is operationalized through the Labour Act which creates a significant statutory huddle.

4. DETERMING WHO IS AN EMPLOYEE UNDER THE LABOUR ACT

Section 2 (1) of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01] applies defines an employee as

“Any person who performs work or services for another person for remuneration or reward on such terms and conditions as agreed upon by the parties or as provided for in this Act, and includes a person performing work or services for another person—

(a) in circumstances where, even if the person performing the work or services supplies his own tools or works under flexible conditions of service, the hirer provides the substantial investment in or assumes the substantial risk of the undertaking; ors

(b) In any other circumstances that more closely resemble the relationship between an employee and employer than that between an independent contractor and hirer of services;”

This two pronged test is the crux of the legal dilemma faced by gig workers. In the context of ride hailing drivers for example workers often provide their own vehicles, fuel, mantainace while assuming market risks such as fluctuating demand and insurance costs.

5. THE LEGAL GREY AREA: APPLYING COMMON LAW TEST TO DIGITAL WORK

Zimbabwean courts have historically relied on common law principles in defining an employee and independent contractors. Three primary tests have been applied;

5.1 SUPERVISION AND CONTROL TEST[9]

This test examines whether the worker is subject to the direct control and supervision of another. As it is an imperative component of this relationship that such open defiance of an employer’s lawful orders constitutes and dismissible offense[10]

Gig workers particularly ride hailing drivers cannot freely set fares they are required to comply with the platform terms of service. This form of algorithmic control mirrors employer-like supervision and undermines claims of a genuine autonomy.

5.2 THE ORGANIZATION TEST OR INTEGRATION TEST

This test examines whether the worker is integrated into the businesses normal operations. On the other hand if this relationship is remote an independent contractor relationship is likely to be in existence[11]However, this test has been criticized for being rather too vague because there is more being an employee than being part and parcel of an entity[12].Ride hailing platforms core business is providing transportation services without drivers it ceases to function.

5.3 THE DOMINANT IMPRESSION TEST[13]

This test courts take into consideration all factors. It posits that if there is supervision and control of a person there is a greater likelihood that an employment relationship is in existence. In Masango & Others v Kenneth & Another[14]the Supreme Court looked at factors such as the fact the person was part of an organisation.The fact that the person called himself an employee wasn’t determinative ,but rather the totality of the evidence pointed to the existence of an independent contractor relationship.

While factors such as flexible working hours and the provision of tools suggest independent contracting, elements such as economic dependency. An application of this test in many gig work arrangements is therefore one of subordination and dependency

6. COMPARATIVE JURISPRUDENCE: LESSONS FROM FOREIGN COURTS.

Foreign jurisprudence provides a valuable insight into how courts have addressed the classification of gig workers.

In Berwick v Uber Technologies, Inc.[15] the California labor commission held that an Uber driver was an employee who was entitled to reimbursement for work related expenses. The commission disregarded the contractual label of independent contractor and focused on substantive control including Ubers control over pricing, performance standards and termination. It concluded that. Uber’s business of would not operate in the absence of its drivers and that the contractual designation did not reflect the economic reality of the relationship

Contrast with this Is Rasier LLC v Florida Department of Economic Opportunity[16], upheld a driver‘s independent contractor status, The court  emphasized the contractual agreement agreement characterized Uber as a technology intermediary.Rasier analogized itself as an art gallery acting as a mere agent, providing a platform for artists connecting supply and demand.

 For Zimbabwe, the Berwick approach is more aligned with the purposive worker- protective spirit of section 2 (1) (b) of the Act and section 65 of the Constitution. It recognizes that the reality of algorithmic subordination can contradict a contract’s formal label.

7. THE WAY FORWARD: JUDICIAL AND LEGISLATIVE REFORM

While platform work operates a double edged sword whilst it offers flexibility and multiple income streams as online gig work has a likelihood of providing people in low and middle-income countries an additional path out of poverty^[17], on the other hand its gig workers lack full enjoyment of their labour rights, it also disproportionately affects women who often lack access to maternity protection.

Two primary reform pathways exist. First the judiciary can adopt a progressive interpretation of section 2 (1) (b) of Labour Act by focusing on economic reality, algorithmic control and worker dependency.

Second and more effectively the parliament should consider legislative reform by introducing an intermediate category of “dependent contractor” or “platform worker”.This category would recognize the hybrid nature of gig work while extending essential protections such as proportional social conrtibutions,transparency in algorithmic management, protection against unjustified platform, exclusion and the right to collective representation.

8. CONCLUSION

The rise of the gig economy presents Zimbabwe with a double edged while it expands income generating opportunities in a constrained economy, it also exposes critical lacunas in Labour regulation. Without timely judicial or legislative intervention the constructional promise of fair labour practices will remain illusory for a digital connected yet legally invisible workforce. Addressing these realities of platform work is not a mere technical exercise but a necessary step in the right direction.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. M Lewanika, ‘Zimbabwe & The Future Of Work A Discussion Primer From The space’ (2016) <chrome://downloads/wcms_534434.pdf> accessed on 30 January 2026
2. T Matonho, ‘Double-edged sword: Navigating the job gains and losses in Zim’s digital age’ NEWS DAY  (2025) < https://www.newsday.co.zw/southerneye/local-news/article/200039073/double-edged-sword-navigating-the-job-gains-and-losses-in-zims-digital-age> > accessed on 30 January 2026
3. A Galawu,’86% of Employers Expect AI to Transform Work by 2030 Zim  (2025)  <https://zimbabwenow.co.zw/articles/19738/86-of-employers-expect-ai-to-transform-work-by-2030 > accessed on 30 January 2026 
4. De Stefano, V Durri, C Wouters, M. 2021. Platform work and the employment relation. ship, ILO Working Paper 27 (Geneva, ILO). Page <chrome://downloads/wcms_777866.pdf>
5. Emma Charlton, ‘What is the gig economy and what’s the deal for gig workers?’, World Economic Forum  (2024) < https://www.weforum.org/stories/2024/11/what-gig-economy-workers/ > accessed on 29 January 2026
6. N 5 above
7. Rutendo Nyeve,’Rise of ‘gig economy’ redefines employment in Zimbabwe Chronicle,(2025)  < Rise of ‘gig economy’ redefines employment in Zimbabwe – herald> accessed on 30 January 2026
8. Jacqueline Ntaka, ‘Beyond 8-5: The promise and perils of Zimbabwe’s gig economy (2025)  < https://www.heraldonline.co.zw/beyond-8-5-the-promise-and-perils-of-zimbabwes-gig-economy/> accessed on 31 January 2026
9. Sec 65 of the Constitution OF Zimbabwe Amendment (No 20) Act 2013
10. Taurai Mrewa,’Parties to an Employment Contract’,(2022) < https://taumrewa.co.zw/parties-to-an-employment-contract/#_ftn2 > accessed on 31 January 2026
11. National employment council for the catering industry v Richard kundeya (SC 35/2016)
12. N10 above
13. R v AMCA Services Ltd
14. TG Kasuso & T Madebwe,‘The protection of individual labour rights in Zimbabwe’ (2021) 21 African Human Rights Law Journal 552-572 http://dx.doi.org/10.17159/1996-2096/2021/v21n1a23 accessed on 31 January 2026
15. Masango & Others v Kenneth & Another  (SC 307/13) the Supreme Court
16. htt
17. Darrin E. McGillis, Appellant, v. LLC UBER (2017) District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
18. Emmanuel Zvada,’Gig economy and polygamous work arrangements on the rise’ (2023)

[1] McDonald Lewanika, ‘Zimbabwe & The Future Of Work A Discussion Primer From The space’ (2016) <chrome://downloads/wcms_534434.pdf> accessed on 30 January 2026

[2] Tonderai Matonho, ‘Double-edged sword: Navigating the job gains and losses in Zim’s digital age’ NEWS DAY (2025) < https://www.newsday.co.zw/southerneye/local-news/article/200039073/double-edged-sword-navigating-the-job-gains-and-losses-in-zims-digital-age> > accessed on 30 January 2026

[3]  Audrey Galawu,’86% of Employers Expect AI to Transform Work by 2030 Zim (2025) <https://zimbabwenow.co.zw/articles/19738/86-of-employers-expect-ai-to-transform-work-by-2030 > accessed on 30 January 2026 

[4] De Stefano, V., Durri, 1., C., Wouters, M. 2021. Platform work and the employment relation. ship, ILO Working Paper 27 (Geneva, ILO). Page <chrome://downloads/wcms_777866.pdf>

[5]  Emma Charlton, ‘What is the gig economy and what’s the deal for gig workers?’, World Economic Forum (2024) < https://www.weforum.org/stories/2024/11/what-gig-economy-workers/ > accessed on 29 January 2026

[6]Rutendo Nyeve,’Rise of ‘gig economy’ redefines employment in Zimbabwe Chronicle,(2025)  < Rise of ‘gig economy’ redefines employment in Zimbabwe – herald> accessed on 30 January 2026

[7] Jacqueline Ntaka, ‘Beyond 8-5: The promise and perils of Zimbabwe’s gig economy (2025) < https://www.heraldonline.co.zw/beyond-8-5-the-promise-and-perils-of-zimbabwes-gig-economy/> accessed on 31 January 2026

[8] Sec 65 of the Constitution OF Zimbabwe Amendment (No 20) Act 2013

[9] Taurai Mrewa,’Parties to an Employment Contract’,(2022) < https://taumrewa.co.zw/parties-to-an-employment-contract/#_ftn2 > accessed on 31 January 2026

[10] National employment council for the catering industry v Richard kundeya (SC 35/2016)

[11] N10 above

[12] R v AMCA Services Ltd

[13] TG Kasuso & T Madebwe,‘The protection of individual labour rights in Zimbabwe’ (2021) 21 African Human Rights Law Journal 552-572 http://dx.doi.org/10.17159/1996-2096/2021/v21n1a23 accessed on 31 January 2026

[14] Masango & Others v Kenneth & Another  (SC 307/13) the Supreme Court

[15] https://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1988&context=historical

[16] Darrin E. McGillis, Appellant, v. LLC UBER (2017) District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

[17] Emmanuel Zvada,’Gig economy and polygamous work arrangements on the rise’ (2023)