The thesis examines the effectiveness of the Kenyan labour dispute resolution system by undertaking a comparative analysis of South African and international labour standards. A comparative approach is adopted, which relies on primary and secondary sources of data, thereby undertaking an in-depth content analysis. The study provides a comprehensive discussion of the current legislative provisions and alternative dispute resolution (ADR) framework as recognised in both countries' national labour legislation as well as in a number of international labour standards instruments. In particular, the study illuminates and discusses the bottlenecks in the current Kenyan system and argues that it does not adequately respond to the needs of parties in terms of the international labour conventions. The study argues further that labour disputes should be resolved as quickly and informally as possible and at the lowest level possible. Similarly, disputes should ideally be resolved with little or no procedural technicalities, and without allowing them to drag on indefinitely. However, this study observes that there have been notable concerns in the current dual system of labour dispute resolution in Kenya. The problems include protracted referral timeframe for dismissal disputes, non-regulation of maximum timeframe for the agreed extension after 30 days conciliation period has lapsed, the absence of a statutory timeframe for appointing a conciliator/commissioner and arbitration process under both the Labour Relations Act, 2007 and the Employment Act, 2007. The study argues for Kenya to incorporate provisions in its labour laws of a proactive and expeditious dispute resolution thereby helping to resolve labour disputes in the most effective and efficient manner without necessarily having to resort to the courts. Likewise, the responsibility of resolving statutory labour disputes in Kenya is still heavily under the control of the government of Kenya through the Ministry of Labour. There is still no independent statutory dispute resolution institution (Conciliation, Mediation Commission) as envisaged by the Labour Relations Act, 2007. As a result, the Kenyan dispute resolution system has been criticised for lack of impartiality leading to the increases in strikes and lockouts. Similarly, it has made the attainment of effective and efficient labour dispute resolution difficult. In view of that, a comparative approach with South Africa is adopted with a view to informing Kenya how the establishment of independent institutions similar to the Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration, Bargaining Councils and specialised labour courts can lead to effective dispute resolution in Kenya. Given above, the study provides a wide range of remedial intervention intended to address the gaps and flaws highlighted in the study. Systematically, the study provides important suggestions and possible solutions for a better institutional framework and processes to address them. However, the study acknowledges that making effective and efficient labour dispute resolution a reality calls for renewed commitment from government and social partners and investment in appropriate human and financial resources. This requires a strong political will as well as concerted efforts from all role players in the labour relations community in the two respective countries.