The objective of this study is to conduct a survey concerning the perceptions of educators in the Queenstown education district of the labour dispute resolution system. The education department is one of the biggest departments in the Eastern Cape’s Provincial Administration system. The likelihood of disputes is high when there are many employees. The focus of the study therefore is on how educators perceive the role of the department in terms of ensuring that labour disputes with the department are resolved efficiently and speedily. The advent of a democratic dispensation resulted in the ushering in of progressive labour legislation such as Labour Relations Act 55 of 1995. The objective of this Act is to facilitate economic development, social justice, labour peace and democratization of the workplace. In other words this Act gave birth to the manner in which labour disputes should be resolved. The study was carried out not only to explore the perceptions of educators but also with a view to making recommendations on the findings in order to help contribute towards labour peace and productivity in the workplace. The attitudes of one hundred and forty-one educators were surveyed via questionnaires and six educators who have had labour disputes with the department were interviewed. The key findings of the study revealed that both the educators who were surveyed and those interviewed lack confidence in the effectiveness of the labour dispute procedures in the district; they perceive the system as being inaccessible to them; time taken to resolve disputes is too lengthy; the system lacks necessary independence from the department of education or government and the department is seen as not adhering to its own policies and legislation. Hence there are many disputes and there is a great need for more awareness and for improved training in handling labour dispute resolution systems for district officials and educators. The study recommends more awareness and training sessions for both district officials responsible for labour relations and educators at large. It also calls for an increasingly proactive role by teacher unions in partnership with the department of education to avoid labour disputes. Although the findings cannot be generalized toother districts of the province, they do however highlight critical areas in labour dispute resolution where attention can be paid and focus made in order to ensure labour peace in the workplace for improved productivity and effective teaching and learning.

The purpose of this study was to compare the dispute resolution systems of Botswana and South Africa. As far as the South Africa dispute resolution system is concerned extensive literature on the system was carried out to describe its functioning. As for the Botswana dispute resolution system there was not much written about it in the literature, so in order to find out more about this system semi-structured interviews with labour relations experts which include mediators, arbitrators, lecturers, labour lawyers, trade unionists, employers and government officials held. The framework of comparison was developed to compare the elements of dispute resolution systems against each other and secondly to compare each system against the criteria of performance to the system. The two labour relations systems were compared in terms of elements of the system and the performance of the two systems. In the comparisons of the elements of the systems it was found out that in both systems the nature of disputes was collective and individual disputes both of which can be referred to the initial process of mediation or conciliation. However, in Botswana collective disputes can only be referred to arbitration if they remain unresolved in mediation while in South Africa only collective disputes on essential services go to arbitration while others lead to a strike or lockout if unresolved at conciliation. As for coverage both systems have incorporated public service sector employees in the systems after being excluded from the system for a very long time. The only difference is that in Botswana the Police force is not included while in South Africa they are included in the system. Differences in the avenues of disputes in the two countries were noted, in Botswana the rights/individual disputes go to either arbitration or Industrial Court if unresolved at mediation, inter-est/collective disputes can only go to arbitration while in South Africa the route of disputes is specified in the legislation. As for the human resources of the two countries it was found that the South African system has more qualified, trained and sufficiently experienced staff than the Botswana system. As for the processes it was found that for South Africa the initial process is conciliation while in Botswana it is mediation but these two processes were similar in many ways, from mediation/conciliation the next step in both systems is arbitration and just like the conciliation/mediation, arbitration in both countries was found to be similar except that in South Africa it is a public hearing. The two systems were also compared in terms of their performances and the research has established that between the two systems the South African system proved to be more superior on three of the criteria; efficiency, accessibility and legitimacy than the Botswana system. Therefore, the research proposes a number of recommendations for Botswana to implement namely; establishment of a legislated mixed process of mediation-arbitration, making the dispute resolution system independent from government, recruitment of high qualified and experienced staff for mediation and arbitration, accreditation to private agencies, effective case management system and proper routing of disputes.

A research report submitted to the Faculty of Commerce, Law and Management of the University of the Witwatersrand, in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the degree Master of Laws in Labour Law, 2018 / The right to strike is entrenched in the Constitutions of both South Africa (the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa 1996,) and Zimbabwe (The Constitution of the Republic of Zimbabwe Act 20 of 2013 as amended). There has been some significant labour law reforms in Southern Africa particularly in Zimbabwe where the right to strike was constitutionally provided for in 2013. Despite the entrenchment of the right to strike in the Constitutions of South Africa and Zimbabwe, there are limitations to this right to strike. It is submitted that workers have rights to strike within the limits of the law but the reality on the ground gives a different picture. While this thesis subscribes to the right of workers to strike, it also argues that the rights of other parties are as important as the rights of the striking workers. In South Africa there is an entrenched culture of violence within industrial action in this constitutional dispensation era.1 In Zimbabwe strike action is severely restricted through various mechanisms like the Public order and Security Act (POSA) 2007.2 An application letter must be sent to the police so that they can grant clearance for the strike. The only notable strikes that were allowed with minimal police intervention was the National Railways of Zimbabwe strike where workers had not been paid their salaries for 15 months3 and that of the Grain Marketing Board where workers had not been paid for more than 24 months.4 There are significant similarities and disparities on how the Labour Relations Act South Africa and the Labour Act Zimbabwe regulate strike actions. It is also apparent that there are inadequacies in the two Acts and that will require some legislative reforms to remedy incidents of unprotected or unlawful strike action. / XL2019

Note:

published_or_final_version / Public Administration / Master / Master of Social Sciences

对于转型期中国的劳动争议，为何国家一边推动以法律规则为本位的劳动监管体系，另一边又不断恢复各种软化法律规则约束力的调解机制？为何从中央到地方再到各部门官僚都偏好于以调解的方式来处置劳动争议？而且，为什么90年代以来大规模的建章立制没有提升准司法的裁决率和司法的判决率，反而使得劳动争议的调解率长期居高不下？国家是如何维持强大的调解能力的？劳资双方又为何愿意接受国家的调解？最后，国家对调解的偏好又会对工人维权行动带来什么样的影响？对于上述问题，本文提出一种“司法化与“政治化并行的双向运动的解释框架。虽然转型期的中国国家在司法机构建设、法律制定、等方面显示出一定的“司法化特征，但是与此同时国家也不断将司法体系“政治化，不仅干预和限制司法权力的行使，也在实际执行过程中软化法律规则的约束力。这种双向运动既根源于革命根据地时期和计划经济时期的制度遗产，也因转型期威权政体内部利益分化而不断强化。这两者也给劳资双方塑造了特殊的政治机会结构，既默许资方规避司法诉讼来压制工人维权，也促使工人高度依赖于国家调解来获得有限的经济赔偿。结果，“调解优先成为劳动争议处置的支配性策略，调解机制逐渐替代了劳动监察、行政裁决和司法判决等直接诉诸国家强制性权力的处置方式。这也是长期以来中国劳动争议调解率居高不下的主要原因。这种双向运动分别在宏观层面和微观层面带来了不同的后果。在宏观层面，“调解优先的策略发挥了分化工人的功能，使得制度化维权渠道中的劳动争议日益个体化和原子化。在微观层面，工人们“准司法化的维权观与国家“去司法化的维稳观之间产生了激烈的张力，形成了“挤出效应，迫使越来越多的维权工人退出法庭并走向街头，采取直接的、对抗性的、激进的、乃至暴力化的抗争行动。 / An expansion of mediation in China’s labor disputes resolution has gathered significant momentum since the middle of the 2000s. This tendency stems from the state’s long-term dependency on politicized mediatory measure to contain labor’s disruptive impulses. And the fragmentation of interests inside the authoritarian regime further marginalizes laws and judicial institutions in resolving grievance. These two factors have together shaped a political opportunity structure as “mediate first for both the labor and capital, and consequently, given a great impetus to the Grand Mediation campaign. By mobilizing grass-roots and non-judicial mediatory agencies to proactively intervene in labor conflict, the Grand Mediation has reinforced the state’s capacity in managing contentious issues without resorting to either heavy handed repression or adversarial litigation. However, regarding the contradiction of the politicized mediation with workers’ judicialized preference, the state’s over-reliance on mediation may impel workers to alienate from institutionalized channel and subsequently deteriorates China’s industrial relation. It is further argued that the prevailing of Grand Mediation may trigger off disruptive and violent labor protests in the long run. All in all, the tendency of “mediate first reveals a dual trajectory as strong politicization and weak judicialization in contemporary China. / Detailed summary in vernacular field only. / 庄文嘉. / "2013年6月". / "2013 nian 6 yue". / Thesis (Ph.D.)--Chinese University of Hong Kong, 2013. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 245-264). / Abstract in Chinese and English. / Zhuang Wenjia. / Chapter 第一章 --- 研究设计 --- p.1 / Chapter 1.1 --- 研究问题 --- p.1 / Chapter 1.2 --- 概念界定 --- p.2 / Chapter 1.3 --- 研究方法 --- p.4 / Chapter 1.4 --- 论文结构 --- p.7 / Chapter 第二章 --- 文献评述 --- p.12 / Chapter 2.1 --- 中国研究中有关劳资关系中国家角色的讨论 --- p.12 / Chapter 2.2 --- 中国研究中有关调解机制的讨论 --- p.18 / Chapter 2.3 --- 比较政治学中有关威权政治司法化的讨论 --- p.28 / Chapter 第三章 --- 制度遗产 --- p.38 / Chapter 3.1 --- 1912-1948年:“调而不停的工潮 --- p.39 / Chapter 3.2 --- 1949-1955年:理想国的改造 --- p.49 / Chapter 3.3 --- 1956-1985年:人民内部矛盾 --- p.56 / Chapter 3.4 --- 1986-1992年:先发制人 --- p.61 / Chapter 3.5 --- 1993-2007年:内忧外患 --- p.69 / Chapter 3.6 --- 2008-2012年:抗争与维稳 --- p.80 / Chapter 3.7 --- 小结 --- p.87 / Chapter 第四章 --- 地方利益结构 --- p.93 / Chapter 4.1 --- 保护地方投资环境和扩大财稅收益 --- p.95 / Chapter 4.2 --- 回应上级维稳压力 --- p.99 / Chapter 4.3 --- 克服行政资源不足和改善治理能力 --- p.103 / Chapter 4.4 --- 应付绩效考核和缓解工作压力 --- p.106 / Chapter 4.5 --- 走向“大调解 --- p.108 / Chapter 4.6 --- 小结 --- p.114 / Chapter 第五章 --- 法律(潜在)使用者的支持程度 --- p.117 / Chapter 5.1 --- 对调解者的强政治信任 --- p.119 / Chapter 5.2 --- 操作化 --- p.125 / Chapter 5.3 --- 经验发现 --- p.135 / Chapter 5.4 --- 小结 --- p.138 / Chapter 第六章 --- 调解何以优先 --- p.142 / Chapter 6.1 --- 不运用法律的法律运用 --- p.142 / Chapter 6.2 --- 操作化、数据与方法 --- p.146 / Chapter 6.3 --- 经验发现 --- p.153 / Chapter 6.4 --- 小结 --- p.161 / Chapter 第七章 --- “调解优先的宏观影响：分化效应和制度内抗争的个体化 --- p.164 / Chapter 7.1 --- 转型期中国的集体性劳动争议 --- p.167 / Chapter 7.2 --- 假设与操作化 --- p.172 / Chapter 7.3 --- 经验发现 --- p.182 / Chapter 7.4 --- 小结 --- p.186 / Chapter 第八章 --- “调解优先的微观影响:挤出效应和制度外抗争的暴力化 --- p.188 / Chapter 8.1 --- “准司法化的维权观和“去司法化的维稳观 --- p.189 / Chapter 8.2 --- 操作化与方法 --- p.196 / Chapter 8.3 --- 经验发现 --- p.201 / Chapter 8.4 --- 小结 --- p.210 / Chapter 第九章 --- 结论：调而不解的劳动争议 --- p.211 / Chapter 9.1 --- 研究发现 --- p.211 / Chapter 9.2 --- 研究贡献 --- p.219 / Chapter 9.3 --- 研究局限性与下一步研究计划 --- p.225 / Chapter 附录1 --- 2012年广州四区外来工抽样调查执行问卷 --- p.228 / Chapter 附录2 --- 2008年至2012年在广东省田野调查中的访谈目录 --- p.243 / 参考文献 --- p.245

<p>This paper investigated how the law of industrial action is shaped in South Africa and in Germany, which specific problems occur in South Africa and Germany, and how the different legal systems solve these problems. It also compared the different legal approaches of these two countries.</p>

published_or_final_version / Public Administration / Master / Master of Social Sciences

<p>This paper investigated how the law of industrial action is shaped in South Africa and in Germany, which specific problems occur in South Africa and Germany, and how the different legal systems solve these problems. It also compared the different legal approaches of these two countries.</p>

History and Background: The history of statutory labour dispute resolution of South Africa dates back to 1909, when the Transvaal Disputes Prevention Act of 1909 was promulgated which applied only to the Transvaal. The Industrial Conciliation Act of 1924 established industrial councils and ad hoc conciliation boards and excluded black workers from the statutory definition of employee and this resulted in a dual industrial relations system that existed up to 1979. The history of statutory labour dispute resolution of Swaziland dates back to 1980 when the first Industrial Relations Act of 1980 was promulgated which established the first Industrial Court. Research Findings: The dispute resolution systems of South Africa and Swaziland contain both similarities and differences. Lessons for Swaziland include combining general and specific dispute resolution procedures, providing the right of a referring party to apply for condonation for late referral of a dispute, using conciliation-arbitration, making arbitration proceedings public hearings, influence of parties on the appointment of arbitrators, court adjudication, pre-dismissal arbitration, court adjudication by judges only, establishment of a constitutional court, full protection of protected strikes/ lockouts from interdicts, legalization of sympathy strikes, and removal of strikes/ lockout ballot. Lessons for South Africa include plural representation of parties at conciliation and arbitration, re-direction of some disputes by the Labour Court to the Commission for arbitration, reporting of labour disputes direct to the Head of State for determination.