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

Thesis (LLM)--Stellenbosch University, 2002 / ENGLISH ABSTRACT: Arbitration is widely regarded as an important alternative to litigation, particularly for international commercial disputes. However, concern currently exists that arbitration is becoming too slow and too expensive, partly through using procedures too similar to those in the courts. Effective arbitration requires suitable legislation, the support of the parties and their lawyers and appropriate initiatives from the arbitral tribunal. The UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration of 1985 is the internationally accepted standard against which the quality of a nation's legislation for international commercial arbitration must be measured. A crucial aspect regarding suitable legislation is the role of the courts. This thesis is essentially concerned with steps which have been taken or need to be taken in Germany and South Africa to achieve effective arbitration. It commences with a brief overview of the sort of delaying tactics which are often encountered in international arbitration practice, including abuse of the court's powers of supervision and intervention. The reception in Germany and South Africa of the UNCITRAL Model Law is then discussed. In Germany it has been adopted for both domestic and international arbitration. The South African Law Commission has recommended its adoption in South Africa for international arbitration. The Law Commission has however recommended a new separate statute for domestic arbitration because of the perceived need for remedial measures to ensure improved arbitration procedures. The thesis then examines the effect of the court's powers on effective arbitration, particularly prior to the award. The current South African law is discussed as well as the changes proposed by the Law Commission in the context of domestic and international arbitration. The South African position is compared with that in Germany, both before and since the introduction of the UNCITRAL Model Law in 1998. After a general discussion of the powers of the court in the context of arbitration, two aspects are identified for special attention. The first is the power of the tribunal to rule on its own jurisdiction and the interaction between the powers of the court with those of the tribunal in this regard. The second concerns the granting of interim measures in the context of arbitration proceedings, with particular attention to security for costs. In certain circumstances, and depending on the applicable rules and legislation, it may be more appropriate for a party to seek such relief from the tribunal, whereas in slightly different circumstances it may be preferable to seek such relief from the court. Finally, steps are considered, which can usefully be taken by the arbitral tribunal itself to promote effective arbitration by using the flexibility of the process. The extent to which the tribunal is "master of its procedure" and thereby able to counter delaying tactics effectively is subject to the doctrine of party autonomy. Specific techniques for more effective arbitral procedures are suggested, namely a more interventionist approach, the use of preliminary meetings, imposing timetables, improving the hearing, the effective use of documentary evidence and discovery and finally the possibility of documents-only arbitration. / AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: Arbitrasie word wyd beskou as 'n belangrike alternatief tot litigasie, veral by internasionale handelsgeskille. Kommer bestaan egter tans dat arbitrasie te stadig en te duur word, gedeeltelik deur die gebruik van prosedures wat te veel met dié van die howe ooreenstem. Doeltreffende arbitrasie vereis geskikte wetgewing, die ondersteuning van die partye en hulle regsverteenwoordigers en toepaslike inisiatiewe deur die arbitrasietribunaal. Die "UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration" van 1985 is die internasionaal aanvaarde standaard waarteen die gehalte van 'n land se wetgewing vir internasionale kommersiële arbitrasie gemeet moet word. 'n Kritieke oorweging by geskikte wetgewing is die rol van die howe. Hierdie tesis behandel die stappe wat in Duitsland en Suid-Afrika reeds geneem is of wat nog geneem moet word om doeltreffende arbitrasie te bewerkstellig. Dit begin met 'n kort oorsig oor die soort vertragingstaktiek wat dikwels in die internasionale arbitrasiepraktyk raakgeloop word, insluitende misbruik van die hof se bevoegdhede van toesighouding en inmenging. Die ontvangs van die "UNCITRAL Model Law" in Duitsland en Suid-Afrika word bespreek. Die wet is in Duitsland vir sowel binnelandse as internasionale arbitrasie ingevoer. Die Suid-Afrikaanse Regskommissie het sy invoering vir internasionale arbitrasie in Suid-Afrika aanbeveel. Die regskommissie het egter 'n nuwe afsonderlike wet vir binnelandse arbitrasie aanbeveel weens die gewaarde behoefte aan regstellende middele om verbeterde arbitrasieprosedures te verseker. Die tesis ondersoek daarna die uitwerking van die hof se bevoegdhede op doeltreffende arbitrasie, veral voor die arbitrasietoekenning. Die huidige Suid-Afrikaanse reg en die wysigings, wat deur die Regskommissie vir internasionale en binnelandse arbitrasie voorgestel word, word oorweeg. Die Suid-Afrikaanse posisie word met dié van Duitsland, voor en na die invoering van die "UNCITRAL Model Law" in 1998, vergelyk. Na 'n algemene bespreking van die hof se bevoegdhede in die samehang van arbitrasie word twee sake vir besondere aandag gekies. Die eerste is die bevoegdheid van die arbitrasietribunaal om oor sy eie jurisdiksie te beslis en die wisselwerking tussen die hof se bevoegdhede en dié van die arbitrasietribunaal in hierdie verband. Die tweede het betrekking op die toestaan van tussentydse regshulp in die samehang van arbitrasieverrigtinge, met besondere verwysing na sekuriteit vir koste. In besondere omstandighede, met inagneming van toepaslike reëls en wetgewing, behoort 'n party verkieslik sodanige regshulp by die arbitrasietribunaal aan te vra, terwyl in effens ander omstandighede behoort die partyeerder die hof te nader. Ten slotte word stappe oorweeg wat nuttig deur die arbitrasietribunaal self geneem kan word om doeltreffende arbitrasie aan te moedig deur die buigsaamheid van die arbitrasieproses te benut. Die mate waarin die tribunaal meester van sy prosedure is en daardeur vertragingstaktiek doeltreffend kan bekamp, is onderworpe aan die leerstuk van partyoutonomie. Bepaalde tegnieke word voorgestelom meer doeltreffende arbitrasieprosedures te bevorder, naamlik 'n meer intervensionistiese benadering, die gebruik van reëlingsvergaderings, die oplegging van 'n rooster vir die arbitrasie, verbetering van die verhoorproses, die doeltreffende gebruik van skriftelike getuienis en blootlegging en laastens die moontlikheid van arbitrasie slegs op dokumente.

In South Africa, the Labour Courts have experienced an important and continuing controversy regarding the permissible scope of judicial review of arbitration awards of the Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration (“CCMA”) in terms of section 145 of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 (“LRA”). Section 145(1) of the LRA specifically provides that arbitration awards, generally considered final and binding, can be reviewed and set aside by the Labour Court on the basis of a defect as defined in section 145(2)(a) and (b). These defects are not prescribed in an open-ended manner but limited to decisions involving allegations of misconduct by the commissioner in relation to his or her duties, a gross irregularity in the conduct of the proceedings and/or allegations that the commissioner exceeded his or her powers or that the award was improperly obtained. Unreasonableness and/or irrationality are not included within the scope of a defect as per section 145(2)(a) and (b). Initially, Carephone (Pty) Ltd v Marcus NO & others 1998 11 BLLR 1093 (LAC) found that the interpretation of section 145 was influenced by rational justifiability in accordance with the right to just administrative action as provided for in section 33, read with item 23(2) of Schedule 6, of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 (‘the 1996 Constitution’). Today, leading precedent in the form of Sidumo & another v Rustenburg Platinum Mines Ltd & others 2007 12 BLLR 1097 (CC) dictates that section 145 of the LRA is suffused by reasonableness in accordance with the right to just administrative action as provided for in section 33 of the 1996 Constitution. The ultimate enquiry is whether the arbitration award is one that a reasonable decision-maker could reach as articulated in Bato Star Fishing (Pty) Ltd v Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism and others 2004 4 SA 490 (CC). However, the enquiry into the reasonableness of a decision is indistinct. As a result, the Labour Courts have struggled to apply the concept of reasonableness in a consistent manner. This thesis seeks to identify the proper role of reasonableness in the judicial review process, including identifying factors that would assist in recognising an unreasonable decision. Relevant principles of judicial review in South Africa in the general administrative law context are considered and distinguished from the process of appeal. An assessment of English case law and commentary in the field of both administrative and employment law is conducted. Finally an extensive examination of South African case law and commentary on the subject, both pre- and post Sidumo, is undertaken. The English law approach is found to provide greater clarity to the interpretation of reasonableness in South African labour law in several respects.

No abstract available. / Thesis (LL.M.)-University of Natal, Durban,1985.

South African labour laws have undergone tremendous amendments before and after independence. This paper focuses on the development after independence, therefore section 34 of the Constitution of 1996, provisions of the Labour Relations Act of 1995 and other laws which deal with labour matters and regulate the labour relations and disputes in the country will be considered. The labour laws in South Africa provide inter alia for the dispute resolution mechanisms, the manner on which disputes should be handled by different organs which are empowered to do so. My focus will be to see how alternative disputes resolution processes of conciliation and arbitration in the Eastern Cape Province aim to transform the South African and global labour market by promoting an integrated simple, quick but efficient and inexpensive dispute settlement services in order to reduce the back log of cases, maintain labour peace, promote democracy at workplace with the view of advancing economic and social justice.

Thesis (LLM. (Labour Laws)) -- University of Limpopo, 2022 / This dissertation presents a legal analysis of the effectiveness of arbitration process in unfair dismissal dispute with a particular emphasis on South Africa. The use of arbitration process in resolving unfair dismissal dispute is influenced by its efficiency, accessibility and flexibility. In South Africa, arbitration process is employed by the CCMA that was established to encourage effective labour dispute. A central problem that the CCMA encounter which affects its effectiveness is the high number of unfair dismissal disputes referred for arbitration process. According to the legal research offered in this dissertation, the number of unjust dismissal disputes brought to arbitration process continue to rise every year. As a result, the CCMA is swamped by these referrals, which affects its effectiveness. According to the findings, the arbitration process is now widely used around the world to resolve unfair dismissal disputes. The extent to which the arbitration process is adopted to resolve unfair dismissal dispute varies from country to country and is guided by legislation. As a result, it has been discovered that the CCMA may benefit from the ACAS’s arbitration process strengths from the United Kingdom as well as Namibia’s arbitration process strengths. The United Kingdom results show that ACAS is able to resolve a higher proportion of unfair dismissal dispute through conciliation rather than arbitration, which reduces the number of referrals from the arbitration process. In Namibia, if parties to unfair dismissal dispute want to refer an unfair dismissal dispute for arbitration process it must be done by mutual agreement between the parties except in exceptional circumstances. All this mode of operation between United Kingdom and Namibia when resolving unfair dismissal disputes hinder high referral rate from the arbitration process. This dissertation concludes with recommendations arising from policy making that promotes the effectiveness of the arbitration process and limiting the abuse of the process.

No abstract available. / Thesis (LL.M.-Law)-University of Natal, Durban, 2003.

A critical and in-depth discussion of the powers of the labour court to review arbitration awards of the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration, the application of the author's findings relating to common-law, legislation and case law and a critical analysis thereof. Special reference is made to the provisions of sections 145 and 158(1)(g) of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 including, in particular, the alternative application thereof in practice and scope for improvement in order to address potential prejudice to parties occasioned by the compulsory nature of (certain) dispute resolutions. This thesis incorporates a comparative study of the British and German labour law systems with reference to the relevant appeal and/or review procedures (as applied in their tribunals/courts), together with a discussion and application of certain other provisions relevant to South Africa labour law. / Jurisprudence / LL.M

A critical and in-depth discussion of the powers of the labour court to review arbitration awards of the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration, the application of the author's findings relating to common-law, legislation and case law and a critical analysis thereof. Special reference is made to the provisions of sections 145 and 158(1)(g) of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 including, in particular, the alternative application thereof in practice and scope for improvement in order to address potential prejudice to parties occasioned by the compulsory nature of (certain) dispute resolutions. This thesis incorporates a comparative study of the British and German labour law systems with reference to the relevant appeal and/or review procedures (as applied in their tribunals/courts), together with a discussion and application of certain other provisions relevant to South Africa labour law. / Jurisprudence / LL.M