Thesis (Ph. D.)--Catholic University of America, 1922. / Biographical note. Includes bibliographical references. A digital reproduction is available from the Open Collections Program at Harvard University, Women and work collection.

The Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 in section 145 and the Arbitration Act 42 of 1965 in section 33 uses wording very similar to one another to specifically enable the labour court to review CCMA and private arbitration awards respectively. As a result, labour arbitration award reviews are regarded as part of the family of special statutory reviews; the implication of such a classification being that the situation specific statutory provision(s) and the jurisprudential principles developed thereunder are applicable rather than those applicable to reviews in general. When the common purpose of the review procedure is then read with the legislature’s objective of quickly and finally resolving labour disputes at arbitration level as well as the limited grounds for review as provided for in the LRA and the AA, indications are that the labour courts’ review powers should be restrictively interpreted. However, because the making of CCMA arbitration awards also constitutes administrative action, the review thereof is also influenced by the constitutional right to just administrative action and reasonableness in particular. This does however not mean that applicants on review can rely directly on section 33 of the Final Constitution or on the broader grounds of section 6 of the PAJA to review CCMA arbitration awards on the basis of unreasonableness. Section 145 of the LRA constitutes administrative action legislation within the specialised labour law sphere and reasonableness is not a ground mentioned therein. A constitutionally consistent interpretation of section 145 however has the effect that reasonableness suffuses the statutory defined grounds for review; a state of affairs that does not threaten the restrictive scope of CCMA arbitration award reviews. In terms thereof, courts on review must establish whether the decision, alleged to have been reached by the commissioner as a result of the occurrence of one or more of the section 145 grounds for review, is one that a reasonable decision-maker could not reach. This interpretation accords far better with the legislature’s specific objectives pertaining to labour arbitration award reviews and the permissible range of reasonableness further ensures that awards are not easily interfered with on review. When a court is then called upon to determine whether or not a decision is reviewable in terms of section 145, it is entitled to have regard to both the award and the record of the proceedings. If, after such scrutiny, the court is of the opinion that the decision was arrived at as a result of the occurrence of a defect as contemplated by section 145 of the LRA, the decision should be reviewed and set aside irrespective of the fact that the outcome can be sustained by other reasons also identifiable from the record; the focus of review always being on the commissioner’s process of reasoning and the way in which he arrived at his findings rather than the outcome of the process. A court should however be mindful of the fact that erroneous reasons for findings per se are not reviewable grounds, but at best serve as evidence of a reviewable ground that will in conjunction with other considerations have to be sufficiently compelling to justify an inference that the decision is unreasonable. In the case of jurisdictional reviews, the reasonableness standard is also applicable because the focus is on the commissioner’s subjective reasons for his findings rather than the jurisdictional fact’s objective existence. A court on review can accordingly set aside a decision following upon the non-observance of a jurisdictional fact if the commissioner, in deciding that the jurisdictional fact existed, committed one or more of the section 145 grounds for review. In the case of private arbitration awards, applicants seeking a review must do so on the grounds recognised in section 33 of the AA and reasonableness is not one of them. This is however not the only reason why these awards are also not subject to the scrutiny of the reasonableness test on review. The other reason relates to the fact that the issuing of private arbitration awards does not constitute administrative action. The disputing parties can also not by agreement incorporate the reasonableness standard into private arbitration award reviews conducted by the labour court. Such parties are however entitled to establish a private appeal or private review body in their arbitration agreement, clothing it with the powers that they wish to confer upon it, including the ability to review an award subject to the reasonableness standard. / Abstract

Strike action by employees is globally used in matters of mutual interest in order to place pressure on employers to meet their demands although the right to strike is not contained in any of the International Labour Organisation’s (ILO) conventions or recommendations. Two conventions of the ILO are however relevant in the context of strikes and lockouts.1 The first is the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention 87 of 1948 and the second convention of importance is the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention 98 of 1949, both of which was ratified by South Africa and accordingly binds South Africa to comply with their provisions. The ILO appointed legal experts to assist the drafters of the Labour Relations Act,2 (LRA) in order to comply with these conventions. Furthermore section 3 of the LRA provides that the LRA must be interpreted in compliance with the international law obligations of South Africa. Section 27 of the Interim Constitution3 made provision for both the right to strike and the right of employers to lockout. In the proposed text of the final Constitution the recourse of the employer to lockout was not included. The text of the final Constitution was submitted to the Constitutional Court (CC) for certification in that it had to decide whether the new text of the final Constitution complied with the constitutional principles agreed to by the different political parties as the inviolable framework for the final Constitution. The CC delivered its judgment in Ex parte Chairperson of the Constitutional Assembly: In re Certification of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa4 and concluded that the omission of a right to lockout from the final Constitution does not conflict with constitutional principles. The CC did not agree with the argument, raised by Business South Africa, based on the proposition that the right of employers to lockout is the necessary equivalent to the right of workers to strike and that therefore, in order to treat workers and employers equally, both should be recognized in the new text. The result of this judgment is that employees’ right to strike is expressly protected by section 23 of the Constitution whilst the right of employers to lockout their employees is not expressly entrenched. The employers’ right is however protected by implication through the express protection of the right to bargain collectively in terms of section 23(5) of the Constitution and section 64 of the LRA.

The problem is to determine whether there exists a common body of procedures being followed by labor/management arbitrators in the United States. The agreement to arbitrate grievance disputes is the quid pro quo for an agreement not to strike. Currently some 95 per cent of all United States labor agreements provide for arbitration as the final step in the grievance procedure. Arbitration has increased at a steady pace over the years. The American Arbitration Association reports a 330 per cent increase in the number of cases between 1966 and 1975. A study, by the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, has found a 300 per cent increase in cases closed between 1968 and 1978. This increase in the use of arbitration to resolve industrial disputes shows the need to analyze the hearing procedures. The results of a study of this type are useful to all concerned in the labor arbitration process.

The thesis examines the Namibian labour dispute resolution system by undertaking a comparative analysis of South African and international labour standards. It describes the legal provisions that exist for the effective and efficient resolution of labour disputes through an alternative dispute resolution (ADR) system, which is given recognition in national labour legislation, and in a number of international labour standards and regional labour instruments. It argues for the provision of a proactive and expeditious dispute resolution system that helps to resolve labour disputes in the most effective and efficient manner, without necessarily having to resort to the courts. The study examines the provisions of relevant international labour standards on labour dispute resolution to ascertain their adequacy as part frameworks that apply to Namibia and South Africa’s obligation to provide ADR systems that respond to the needs of the labour relations community. It is argued that ratifying particular ILO conventions creates obligations to comply with their provisions, and to apply them in national legislation and in practice. It is further argued that by having ratified those international labour standards that provide for ADR, Namibia assumes specific obligations under international law, enjoining the country to provide the required ADR system of conciliation and arbitration, which is credible and trusted by disputants and the general public. A comparative approach is adopted, which relies on primary and secondary sources of data, thereby undertaking an in-depth content analysis. The focus of the comparison is on whether the South African ADR system can inform Namibia’s application of its newly adopted ADR system. South Africa has a labour dispute resolution system that has influenced Namibian labour law, prompting Namibia to borrow its ADR system from South Africa’s advanced Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA). In this sense, it is submitted that there are fundamental similarities and differences in the two respective systems. Ideally, disputes should be resolved at conciliation level, resulting in the minority of disputes being referred to arbitration or the Labour Court. In terms of implementation, it is argued that despite the international obligation and commitment to provide and make available free and expeditious ADR services, there are gaps that exist between the legal framework regulating the ADR system and the application thereof in practice, making the attainment of effective and efficient labour dispute resolution difficult. Disputes should be resolved as quickly and informally as possible, with little or no procedural technicalities, and without allowing them to drag on indefinitely, offering immediate solutions instead. This is far from the reality of the situation. In contrast, the study found that although the Labour Act, 2007 and the South African Labour Relations Act (LRA) have brought statutory dispute resolution within the reach of the ordinary worker, these Acts may have compounded the problems relating to dispute resolution in the respective countries. The statutes in question have created sophisticated systems of dispute resolution in which most role players are seen as failing to operate as a result of the complex and technical processes of dealing with disputes. For this reason, the author proposes several remedial interventions that look to the future and the continued provision of fast, effective and user-friendly ADR services. Solving these problems and 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.

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.

This thesis focuses on the review of labour arbitration awards given under the auspices of the following bodies: the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration ("CCMA"), bargaining councils, statutory councils, accredited private agencies and private arbitration tribunals. The general grounds of review applicable to the arbitration awards of each body are set out. Against this background, the case of Carephone (Pty) Ltd v Marcus NO & Others (1998) 19 ILJ 1425 (LAC) is analysed and the principles pertaining to the justifiability test are clarified. The judicial rationale for the application of the test to CCMA arbitration proceedings and criticisms of the test are then examined. Currently the justifiability test applies in the review of CCMA proceedings only, so the judicial reasoning for the rejection of justifiability as a ground for private arbitration review is examined. Three approaches are suggested for the application of the justifiability test in private arbitration review. First it is proposed that the Arbitration Act could be interpreted to include the justifiability test under the statutory review grounds. Failing the acceptance of this approach, the second submission is that arbitration agreements could be interpreted to include an implied term that the arbitrator is under a duty to give justifiable awards. A third suggestion is that the law should be developed by attaching an ex lege term to all arbitration agreements requiring arbitrators to give justifiable awards. In the final chapter, the requirement of justifiability in awards given under the auspices of collective bargaining agents and accredited private agencies highlights the incongruity in applying the justifiability test in CCMA arbitration review and in rejecting this test in private arbitration review.

published_or_final_version / Geography and Geology / Master / Master of Arts

Thesis (Ph. D.)--Catholic University of America, 1943. / Bibliography: p. 236-248.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--Catholic University of America, 1943. / Bibliography: p. 236-248.