The dynamic social and economic conditions in Namibia warranted a periodic review of labour legislation. Given these needs, uhe then Ministry of Labour, undertook a project in 1998, to assess the effectiveness of the first post kndependence Labour Act, 1992 (Act No 6 of 1992) a trirartite task force was established which recommended the amendment of the 1992 Act. This led to the enactment of the Labour Act, 2004 which introduced a new system of dispute prevention and resolution. However, the 2004 Act could not be put into effect in its entirety, because of its technical flaws and the fact that the Namibian Employers Federation (NEF) took issue with some of the provisions of the Act, such as leave provisions. In 2005, the Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare with its social partners undertook a complete technical review of the entire 2004 Act. As a result, In 2007, the new Labour Bill 2007 was tabled in Parliament, which eventually adopted it as the Labour Act, 2007 (Act No 11 of 2007) which became operational on the 1st November 2008. The new Labour Act, 2007 (Act No 11 of 2007) brings in sweeping changes to the familiar terrain of labour law and industrial relations practice in Namibia. The new Act, has done aware with the District Labour Court system, in its place comes the Labour Commissioner. The rudimentary dispute- settlement mechanisms of the old (first ) Labour Act, 1992 ( Act No 6 of 1992) have made way for the more sophisticated, yet speedier and more economical system of alternative dispute resolution through arbitration and conciliation by the Labour Commissioner. The Labour Act, 2007, requires parties to the labour dispute to seek conciliation before either taking industrial action or seeking adjudicative solutions to the dispute. Not only does the Labour Act, establish or makes provision for the appointment of the Labour Commissioner to provide for dispute resolution, it also permits parties to establish their own process for dispute resolution through a private arbitration route. Faced with this daunting array of untested rules and institutions, I have approached the writing of this work with some trepidation. My aim is to provide a thoroughgoing commentary on the provisions relating to dispute resolution. In the absence of much authoritative interpretation, I had to rely heavily on past practices and foreign South African precedents to identify the construction that judges and arbitrators are likely to arrive at. The present treatise provides a, comprehensive and integrated commentary for all involvement in the resolution of labour disputes in Namibia; it further provides rules and procedures which govern statutory disputes resolution through the Labour Commissioner. I sincerely hope that this paper, will prove useful to all those involved in labour law and industrial relations practice, as well as to teachers and students of this subject.

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.