M.Phil. / The Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 introduced new structures for resolution of labour disputes. The Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA) was established as an independent body to resolve labour disputes. The CCMA also took over the functions of the old Industrial Court. The Act also replaced the old Industrial councils with bargaining councils. The function of the bargaining councils is to play a parallel role to the CCMA in dispute resolution within their scope of jurisdiction. The purpose of the legislature in establishing the bargaining councils was to alleviate part of the burden of the CCMA in resolving of labour disputes. The Act envisaged that the CCMA would resolve disputes speedily and inexpensively. If bargaining councils fail in their task of resolving disputes, these disputes are referred back to the CCMA adding to its caseload. The study seeks to establish the effectiveness of bargaining councils in handling dispute resolution function and whether they assist the CCMA in alleviating part of its burden. There are 43 bargaining councils that are accredited by the CCMA to conciliate and arbitrate disputes. Some bargaining councils are accredited to do both conciliations and arbitrations but are failing to perform both tasks. Some bargaining councils are closing down. Other registered bargaining councils do not apply for accreditation. Disputes that are not handled by these councils are referred to the CCMA. The CCMA caseload is escalating every year since inception in 1996. In view of these circumstances the study seeks to understand from bargaining councils and from both the unions and employers organizations that are party to the bargaining council agreements, whether there are any problems that hinder the effectiveness of bargaining councils in dispute resolution in the private sector. It has been concluded in the study that there are a number of problems that can cause bargaining councils not to exercise dispute resolution function effectively. It has been established that only few bargaining councils receive a high number of disputes referred. Bargaining councils are quicker in handling disputes than the CCMA, however, most bargaining councils receive a small number of disputes. Bargaining councils also complain about insufficient funds in handling dispute resolution function. They complain that the subsidy they receive from the CCMA is not enough for this function. Small bargaining councils are the most suffering because of low numbers of referrals. It has also been established that bargaining councils pay their panelists very high rates. The non-accredited bargaining councils are rejected when applying for accreditation because of not meeting the required criteria. Employers are negative about belonging to bargaining councils because they feel it is costly. Some employers who belong to bargaining councils are also reluctant to contribute to established council's fund.

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

No abstract available. / Thesis (LL.M.)-University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, 2013.

Jurisdiction is the power or competence of a Court to hear and determine an issue between parties, as well as the power to compel the parties to give effect to a judgment. The approach of a CCMA commissioner faced with a jurisdictional challenge is therefore an important issue that requires legal certainty. Unfortunately, our case law has not been uniform with regard to the various issues surrounding jurisdiction of the CCMA, for example: what facts need to be established in order for the CCMA to have jurisdiction and at what stage of the process should a commissioner deal with the issue of jurisdiction. The purpose of this treatise is to consider the various approaches of our courts to the issue of the jurisdiction of the CCMA and to determine what approach is practically best suited for CCMA commissioners when the issue of jurisdiction is in dispute. The research methodology is based on the various approaches of our courts to the jurisdiction of the CCMA as set out in Bombardier Transportation v Mtiya [2010] 8 BLLR 840 (LC). The more practical “third” approach as proposed by van Niekerk J, in Bombardier Transportation v Mtiya [2010] 8 BLLR 840 (LC), has been favoured by the Labour Court and the CCMA following the judgment. The correct approach of a commissioner when dealing with specific jurisdictional facts such as condonation and the jurisdiction of a bargaining council will further be considered. However, the predicament that commissioners face is that the Labour Appeal Court’s approach to jurisdiction is in conflict with that of the Labour Court’s approach. In conclusion, it is submitted that the Labour Appeal Court must pronounce on the issue of jurisdiction, taking into consideration the approach of the Labour Court as to create certainty regarding the correct approach of a commissioner when faced with a jurisdictional challenge.

The right to legal representation at labour proceedings of an administrative or quasi-judicial nature is not clear in our law, and has been the subject of contradictory debate in the South African courts since the1920’s. Despite the ambiguities and uncertainty in the South African common law, the statutory regulation of legal representation was not comprehensively captured in labour legislation resulting in even more debate, especially as to the right to be represented by a person of choice at these proceedings in terms of the relevant entrenched protections contained in the Bill of Rights. The Labour Relations Act 12 of 2002 (prior to amendment) is silent on the right to representation at in-house disciplinary proceedings. Section 135(4) of Act 12 of 2002 allows for a party at conciliation proceedings to appear in person or to be represented by a director or co employee or a member or office bearer or official of that party’s registered trade union. Section 138(4) of the same Act allows for legal representation at arbitration proceedings, but subject to section 140(1) which excludes legal representation involving dismissals for reasons related to conduct or capacity, unless all parties and the commissioner consent, or if the commissioner allows it per guided discretion to achieve or promote reasonableness and fairness. The abovementioned three sections were however repealed by the amendments of the Labour Relations Act 12 of 2002. Despite the repealing provision, Item 27 of Schedule 7 of the Amendment reads that the repealed provisions should remain in force pending promulgation of specific rules in terms of section 115(2A)(m) by the CCMA. These rules have not been promulgated to date. The common law’s view on legal representation as a compulsory consideration in terms of section 39 of the Constitution 108 of 1996 and further a guidance to the entitlement to legal representation where legislation is silent. The common law seems to be clear that there is no general right to legal representation at administrative and quasi judicial proceedings. If the contractual relationship is silent on representation it may be permitted if exceptional circumstances exist, vouching such inclusion. Such circumstances may include the complex nature of the issues in dispute and the seriousness of the imposable penalty ( for example dismissal or criminal sanction). Some authority ruled that the principles of natural justice supercede a contractual condition to the contrary which may exist between employer and employee. The courts did however emphasize the importance and weight of the contractual relationship between the parties in governing the extent of representation at these proceedings. Since 1994 the entrenched Bill of Rights added another dimension to the interpretation of rights as the supreme law of the country. On the topic of legal representation and within the ambit of the limitation clause, three constitutionally entrenched rights had to be considered. The first is the right to a fair trial, including the right to be represented by a practitioner of your choice. Authority reached consensus that this right, contained in section 35 of the Constitution Act 108 of 1996 is restricted to accused persons charged in a criminal trial. The second protection is the entitlement to administrative procedure which is justifiable and fair (This extent of this right is governed y the provisions of the Promotion of Access to Administrative Justice Act 3 of 2000) and thirdly the right to equality before the law and equal protection by the law. In conclusion, the Constitution Act 108 of 1996 upholds the law of general application, if free and justifiable. Within this context, the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 allows for specific representation at selected fora, and the common law governs legal representation post 1994 within the framework of the Constitution. The ultimate test in considering the entitlement to legal representation at administrative and quasi judicial proceedings will be in balancing the protection of the principle that these tribunals are masters of their own procedure, and that they may unilaterally dictate the inclusion or exclusion of representation at these proceedings and the extent of same, as well as the view of over judicialation of process by the technical and delaying tactics of legal practitioners, against the wide protections of natural justice and entrenched constitutional protections.

M.Comm. / With the adoption of the 1995 Labour Relations Act (LRA) and the creation of the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA), expectations ran high that the era of workplace conflict that had characterised previous labour dispensation would come to an end. The reality, however, is that parties have abdicated their responsibility in dispute-resolution, and have transferred this responsibility to the CCMA and Bargaining Councils. The purpose of this study was to gain insight into the perceptions of users of the current model with regard to its effectiveness, flaws and challenges. Based on the data received, this study presents a case for a new approach to discouraging disputes from being taken beyond the level of the workplace. The following research questions were formulated: Given the prevailing lack of ownership by parties over dispute-resolution and the resultant rise in case load and costs, what alternative strategies could be adopted? With the introduction of such new strategies, what dispute resolution model would be appropriate to enable the parties to focus on the core issues and also reduce costs? These questions are based on the set of main problems and sub-problems. The main problems are the low dispute-resolution/settlement rate (the conciliation stage being a mere formality), even when arbitration takes place; and the lack of ownership for dispute prevention by line managers and organised labour. In collecting data I followed the triangulation approach which combined both qualitative and quantitative research. During the qualitative stage, I collected data by using unstructured interviews and audio-recording the interviews with the Secretary of the PHSDSBC. I used quantitative methods to distribute participants’ agenda points and to record the numbers returned. The same method was used to analyse the patterns and themes emerging from data collected. Forty-nine negotiators, shop stewards, human resource managers across the nine provinces, and staff in the office of the Secretary of the PHSDSBC, were selected. Because participants in the study were distributed over a wide area, my level of physical contact with them was restricted to the normal business schedules of the Bargaining Council, during teambuilding exercises, and during Employer Caucus meetings. As a participant in these meetings, I was able to adopt an auto-ethnographic stance. I analysed the data, using graphical depictions, and categorised it into thoughts and later into themes. The findings indicate that the current dispute-resolution system model, being reactive in its application, is time-consuming for the both employee and the employer.

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.

The right to legal representation at internal disciplinary hearings and arbitration proceedings at the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA), and bargaining councils, where the reason for dismissal relates to misconduct or incapacity is a topic that is raised continuously and often debated. Despite no amendments to labour legislation pertaining to the issue at hand there was however a recent Supreme Court of Appeal judgment. This judgment alters one’s view and clarifies the uncertainties that were created around Rule 25 of the CCMA rules, it also brings a different perspective to the matter, but it will however continue to ignite significant interest. There is no automatic right to legal representation at disciplinary hearings, at the CCMA, and at bargaining councils where disputes involve conduct or capacity and this is the very reason why it is a contentious matter for all parties to grapple with. The dismissal of an employee for misconduct may not be significant to the employer, but the employee’s job is his major asset, and losing his employment is a serious matter to contend with. Lawyers are said to make the process legalistic and expensive, and are blamed for causing delays in the proceedings due to their unavailability and the approach that they adopt. Allowing legal representation places individual employees and small businesses on the back foot because of the costs. Section 23(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, Act 108 of 1996, provides everyone with the right to fair labour practices, and section 185 of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 gives effect to this right and specifies, amongst others, that an employee has the right not to be unfairly dismissed. At internal disciplinary hearings, the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 is silent as to what the employee’s rights are with regards to legal representation and the general rule is that legal representation is not permitted, unless the employer’s disciplinary code and procedure or the employee’s contract allows for it, but usually an employee may only be represented by a fellow employee or trade union representative, but not by a legal representative. In MEC: Department of Finance, Economic Affairs and Tourism, Northern Province v Mahumani, the Supreme Court of Appeal held that there exists no right in terms of the common law to legal representation in tribunals other than in courts of law. However, both the common law and PAJA concede that in certain situations it may be unfair to deny a party legal representation. Currently the position in South Africa is that an employee facing disciplinary proceedings can put forward a request for legal representation and the chairperson of the disciplinary hearing will have the discretion to allow or refuse the request. In Hamata v Chairperson, Peninsula Technikon Internal Disciplinary Committee, the Supreme Court of Appeal found that the South African law does not recognise an absolute right to legal representation in fora other than courts of law, and a constitutional right to legal representation only arises in respect of criminal matters.

Magister Philosophiae - MPhil / Over the past few years, there has been a noticeable increase of cases that the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA) has dealt with relating to dismissal for social media posts by employees. Employees have shared some of their unpleasant experiences with their employers, some have expressed their grievances and in other situations have posted on social media platforms how unfairly they feel they are treated by their employers. There is very little scholarly research in South Africa on the discussion on the use of social media and how it affects the employment relationship that exists between the employer and employee as well as how it may affect the relationship that exists between colleagues. The main objective of this research is to establish whether there is a fair reason to dismiss an employee based on what they post on their personal social media platforms, and to understand when and how the right to privacy can be limited. The aim of this research is to find whether there are any shortcomings in the South African labour laws that social media has opened in our laws with regards to the employment relationship and the use of social media, if there are any shortcomings will recommend how the said shortcomings can be addressed.

Le contexte culturel particulier à la Chine influe sur le choix du mode de résolution des différends commerciaux comportant un lien d'extranéité. Plusieurs mécanismes de préventions des litiges sont utilisés en Chine. La conciliation et médiation sont issues d'une tradition plus que millénaire en Chine, elles occupent donc un rôle important dans la résolution des différends commerciaux. La conciliation est ainsi presque toujours mise en branle antérieurement à un règlement des différends comportant des solutions contraignantes pour les parties soit un jugement ou une sentence arbitrale. L'analyse de la structure juridique chinoise nous permet de soulever les lacunes relatives à l'utilisation de ce véhicule dans la résolution d'un litige. Effectivement, l'indépendance judiciaire est défaillante ce qui a pour conséquences de préférer l'arbitrage aux tribunaux judiciaires. Malgré cette défaillance, certains investisseurs étrangers pourraient y recourir ce qui nécessite alors une connaissance minimale de ce système juridique. Le règlement des différends, en Chine, relatif à un élément d'extranéité s'effectue principalement par voie arbitrale. De ce fait, deux catégories d'arbitrage doivent alors être présentées ce qui permet d'écarter en Chine l'arbitrage ad hoc qui n'est pas expressément interdit, ni permis. Cette situation a permis à l'arbitrage institutionnel de se développer de façon considérable particulièrement par le biais de la CIETAC qui constitue ainsi l'institution de choix. Mais parallèlement à elle, il ne faut pas négliger les institutions arbitrales étrangères ayant sis sur le territoire chinois qui, de plus en plus, attirent les investisseurs étrangers, et leurs partenaires. / China's particular cultural background influences the mode of resolution that is chosen to resolve foreign-related commercial conflicts. A lot of prevention mechanisms are used in China. Conciliation and mediation come from a millenary tradition and thus have a very important place in resolving commercial conflicts. Conciliation is almost always used before any other kind of conflict resolution solution, such as legal action, is taken into consideration by both parties. By analyzing Chinese judicial structure it is possible to find some omissions in this mode of resolution. Indeed, the judicial independence is in such default that both parties will almost always prefer arbitration rather than a judgment by the court. This being said, some foreign investors can chose to go through with the judicial process but then a basic knowledge of the local judicial system becomes necessary. Therefore foreign-related conflict resolution in China is usually done by arbitration. There are two categories of arbitration that must be known. One of them is the ad hoc arbitration who is not expressly permitted or prohibited in China. This situation has been a benefit to the development of the institutional arbitration which has been developed a lot by the most important arbitration institution that is the CIETAC in China. In other hand, we cannot forget the foreign arbitration institutions in China that attract more and more foreign investors and their Chinese partners.