No description available.

Section 23(2) of the Constitution gives every worker the right to strike and the LRA gives effect to that right. Section 64 of the LRA, however, requires that the issue in dispute first be referred to a bargaining council or the CCMA before a strike can be called. A certificate declaring that the issue in dispute was not resolved or 30 days or, alternatively, any extension must lapse and notice must be given to the employer before a strike can commence. Generally, the issue in dispute referred to conciliation must be the same issue in dispute over which that the strike was called. The question that arises is what will happen to the status of the strike if the issue in dispute or the demand changes during the course of the strike. Reference was made to literature study in which the criteria were set out on how to determine the true issue in dispute. Suggestions were also made on how to declare strike action unprotected should an employer be of the view that its workers are striking over a different issue in dispute or demand than the one that was referred to conciliation. / LLM (Labour Law), North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2015

Section 23(2) of the Constitution gives every worker the right to strike and the LRA gives effect to that right. Section 64 of the LRA, however, requires that the issue in dispute first be referred to a bargaining council or the CCMA before a strike can be called. A certificate declaring that the issue in dispute was not resolved or 30 days or, alternatively, any extension must lapse and notice must be given to the employer before a strike can commence. Generally, the issue in dispute referred to conciliation must be the same issue in dispute over which that the strike was called. The question that arises is what will happen to the status of the strike if the issue in dispute or the demand changes during the course of the strike. Reference was made to literature study in which the criteria were set out on how to determine the true issue in dispute. Suggestions were also made on how to declare strike action unprotected should an employer be of the view that its workers are striking over a different issue in dispute or demand than the one that was referred to conciliation. / LLM (Labour Law), North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2015

Alternative Dispute Resolution was developed as an alternative to the traditional dispute resolution mechanism, litigation, which had become costly, time-consuming, did not give the parties control over the outcome of their disputes and was generally cumbersome. ADR refers to a variety of techniques for resolving disputes without resort to litigation in the courts. The concept behind the introduction of ADR methods was, inter alia, to reduce the delays and costs associated with litigation; to introduce relatively less formal methods of dispute resolution; to introduce consensual problem solving and empower individuals by enabling them to control the outcome of their dispute and develop dispute resolution mechanisms that would preserve personal and business relationships. ADR processes were thus intended to produce better outcomes all round. From the time ADR appeared on the scene, its usage has gained international recognition with both common law and civil law countries following the trend. Being faced with similar problems associated with litigation, Zambia has followed the trend and adopted some ADR mechanisms. Most commonly used ADR mechanisms in Zambia are mediation/conciliation, arbitration and negotiation. The legal and institutional frameworks for ADR in Zambia are firmly in place. It is thus, not far fetched to predict a successful future for ADR in which it will enjoy the support of the major stakeholders and play a vital role in justice delivery in Zambia. This thesis has a section on the conceptual framework for ADR and discusses the development of ADR internationally and some processes in use. It examines selected institutions of justice delivery in Zambia with a view to evaluating their operations and contribution to justice delivery in Zambia. It traces the development of institutions of justice delivery in Zambia from colonial times up to the present and assesses their performance. ADR processes currently in use in Zambia are critically examined and their shortcomings reviewed. The legal and institutional frameworks for ADR and the role they play of providing the supporting structure for ADR in the country are evaluated. Future prospects for ADR are indicated and recommendations for successful implementation of ADR in Zambia are given. / Jurisprudence / LL.D.

Study One: Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunals (SENDIST) provide independent adjudication of parental appeals against Local Authority (LA) decisions. The Parent Partnership Service (PPS) and Disagreement Resolution Services (DRS) are both arranged to reduce disagreements and, specifically, to prevent tribunals. Study One aimed to explore parental experiences of Local Disagreement Resolution Services (LDRSs) including the PPS and DRS. A secondary aim of Study One was to identify barriers to and facilitators of disagreement resolution from a parental perspective. Methods: Study One utilised semi-structured interviews as a means of exploring seven parents' experiences and constructs. Interview transcripts were analysed using thematic analysis in order to specify key themes relating to the resolution of disagreements about SEN. Results: Parents reported a sense of embattlement with the Local Authority that appeared to act as a barrier to the resolution of disagreements. Parents also identified a number of facilitators of disagreement resolution including: Feeling 'listened to'; Having access to a 'legitimate decision-maker'; and becoming better informed. A number of barriers to disagreement resolution were also reported, including but not limited to: a perception that no one is listening to them; a perception that LA staff lack independence; a perception that the LA cannot be trusted to deliver SEN provision. Study Two:Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunals (SENDIST) provide independent adjudication of parental appeals against Local Authority (LA) decisions. The Parent Partnership Service (PPS) and Disagreement Resolution Services (DRS) are both arranged to reduce disagreements and, specifically, to prevent tribunals. Study Two aimed to explore experiences of professionals working within Local Disagreement Resolution Services (LDRSs) including the PPS and DRS. A secondary aim of Study Two was to identify barriers to and facilitators of disagreement resolution from a professional perspective. A final aim of Study Two was to synthesise the perceptions reported by professionals in Study Two with those reported by parents in Study One. Methods: Study Two utilised semi-structured interviews as a means of exploring six LA-employed professionals' experiences and constructs. Interview transcripts were analysed using thematic analysis in order to specify key themes relating to the resolution of disagreements about SEN. Findings emerging from Study Two were integrated with findings from Study One using the themes generated through thematic analysis. Results: Professionals reported a number of parental factors that were perceived to act as a barrier to disagreement resolution. These included but were not limited to: weak understanding of SEN systems and a lack of confidence to engage in mediation processes. Professionals did not identify any parental factors perceived to be conducive to disagreement resolution. A smaller number of facilitators of disagreement resolution were reported, including: early intervention; and face-to-face meetings. Synthesis of findings from Studies One and Two resulted in the creation of clusters of themes that can inform future policy and practice. Findings from Studies One and Two indicate that disagreement resolution is best supported where Local Authorities can promote: collaboration, information-sharing, and reassurance for parents.

Historical events are framed by the actors of the time and then re-framed by subsequent historians and the public. This thesis examines the historiography of the San Juan Island Dispute, 1853-1871, known colloquially in the twentieth century as the “Pig War.” In 1859, after an American settler on San Juan shot a pig owned by the Hudson’s Bay Company, the American military and the British Royal Navy met in a tense stand-off resulting in a twelve year joint-military occupation of the island. This conflict was the last border dispute between the two nations. Following World War II, a message of peace became the dominant trope of histories written about the “Pig War.” The term itself has come to represent this overarching theme. With documents from the dispute, such as colonial despatches, official correspondence and newspaper editorials, this thesis considers how the event was framed at the time; and employing semiotics as a technique for discourse analysis, it examines how the “war” was re-framed in the twentieth century. The thesis follows Alfred Young’s research on antebellum America’s commemoration of the “Boston Tea Party,” with its message appropriated by politicians, merging history and myth. The “Pig War” occupies similar terrain as the reconceptualization of the event embodies its own message of a unique identity for the Pacific Northwest, associated with the 49th parallel as the world’s longest, most peaceful, “undefended” border. / Graduate / 0578 / 0334 / 0337 / lyallg@uvic.ca

published_or_final_version / Real Estate and Construction / Master / Master of Science in Construction Project Management

實務上，我國勞資爭議行政處理機制雖可分為協調、調解與仲裁三種。但絕大多數之爭議係透過協調解決，並非透過勞資爭議處理法所定之調解或仲裁機制，在調解制度約只處理10﹪之爭議，而仲裁制度更是少見。換言之，實際上確實有一定比例之勞資爭議無法透過前開紛爭處理制度解決，勞工必須循曠日費時之訴訟程序方能獲得救濟，甚且以陳情抗爭方式凸顯爭議，認為制度之設計無法確保應有權益，且相關配套措施亦欠周延。面對勞資爭議件數有逐年增加趨勢，如何強化現有勞資爭議處理機制或創設新的解決機制，使各級勞工行政人員處理爭議時有一遵循依據，成為重要課題。 另一方面，行政機關在處理勞資爭議案件，長久以來迭遭質疑「主管機關介入私權」問題，有失公平性及中立性。本文爰將重心置於調解、仲裁機制，乃至於未有法律依據之協調機制之應有定位問題，同時如何在「效率性」、「程序保障」以及「紛爭解決」等要求間取得最佳之平衡進行探討。同時針對調解、仲裁制度設計之各個環節，例如調解、仲裁委員會之組成、委員之資格、選任、程序進行所應遵循之法理以及調解、仲裁成立之效力等問題併與探究，因其彼此間均具有緊密之連動關係。 基上，本文之第一章主要敘明本文之研究動機、目的及方法與範圍。其第二章，探討ADR發展之歷史契機，說明ADR之核心機能，再針對不同之角度與標準，對ADR的形式和類型進行劃分，進而說明ADR之基本理論。其第三章，從行政機關之勞動統計數字及司法機關之受理爭議案件，驗證我國勞工在勞資爭議事件程序選擇上有其偏好，多數均選擇ADR機制，何以如此，則有必要就勞動關係之本質及勞動訴訟之特性予以論述及檢視。其第四章，介紹現行調解機制之相關規範，再就現行規範予以檢討及評析，並加以歸納，提出如何建構完善調解機制。其第五章，介紹現行仲裁機制之相關規範，再就現行規範予以檢討及評析，並加以歸納，提出如何建構完善仲裁機制。其第六章，彙整前述各章節所得之結論，最後提出具體之建議。

This thesis seeks to investigate the lack of participation by African countries in the WTO Dispute Settlement System by first providing an overview of the Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU) system and, secondly by explaining the reasons that forestall the participation of African countries.

Theoretical procedures are developed to account for the effect of emotion and perception in strategic conflict. The <em>possibility principle</em> facilitates modeling the effects of emotions on future scenarios contemplated by decision makers; <em>perceptual graph models</em> and a <em>graph model system</em> permit the decision makers (DMs) to experience and view the conflict independently; and <em>perceptual stability analysis</em>, which is based on individual- and meta-stability analysis techniques, is employed in analyzing graph model systems when the DMs have inconsistent perceptions. These developments improve the methodology of the Graph Model for Conflict Resolution by reconciling emotion, perception, and strategy to make predictions consistent with the actual unfolding of events. <br /><br /> Current research in neuroscience suggests that emotions are a necessary component of cognitive processes such as memory, attention, and reasoning. The somatic marker hypothesis, for example, holds that feelings are necessary to reasoning, especially during social interactions (Damasio, 1994, 2003). Somatic markers are memories of past emotions: we use them to predict future outcomes. To incorporate the effect of emotion in conflict, the underlying principle of Damasio?s hypothesis is used in developing the possibility principle, which significantly expands the paradigm of the Graph Model for Conflict Resolution of Fang, Hipel, and Kilgour (1993). <br /><br /> State identification is a crucial step in determining future scenarios for DMs. The possibility principle is integrated into the modeling stage of the Graph Model by refining the method of determining feasible states. The possibility principle enables analysts and DMs to include emotion in a conflict model, without sacrificing the parsimonious design of the Graph Model methodology, by focusing attention on two subsets of the set of feasible states: <em>hidden</em> and <em>potential</em> states. Hidden states are logically valid, feasible states that are invisible because of the presence of negative emotions such as anger and fear; potential states are logically valid, feasible states that are invisible because of missing positive emotions. Dissipating negative emotions will make the hidden states visible, while expressing the appropriate positive emotions will make the potential states visible. The possibility principle has been applied to a number of real world conflicts. In all cases, eliminating logically valid states not envisioned by any DM simplifies a conflict model substantially, expedites the analysis, and makes it an intuitive and a realistic description of the DMs' conceptualizations of the conflict. <br /><br /> A fundamental principle of the Graph Model methodology is that all DMs' directed graphs must have the same set of feasible states, which are integrated into a <em>standard</em> graph model. The possibility principle may modify the set of feasible states perceived by each DM according to his or her emotion, making it impossible to construct a single standard graph model. When logically valid states are no longer achievable for one or more DMs due to emotions, the apprehension of conflict becomes inconsistent, and resolution may become difficult to predict. Therefore, reconciling emotion and strategy requires that different apprehensions of the underlying decision problem be permitted, which can be accomplished using a perceptual graph model for each DM. A perceptual graph model inherits its primitive ingredients from a standard graph model, but reflects a DM's emotion and perception with no assumption of complete knowledge of other DMs' perceptions. <br /><br /> Each DM's perceptual graph model constitutes a complete standard graph model. Hence, conclusions drawn from a perceptual graph model provide a limited view of equilibria and predicted resolutions. A graph model system, which consists of a list of DMs' perceptual graph models, is defined to reconcile perceptions while facilitating conclusions that reflect each DM's viewpoint. However, since a DM may or may not be aware that other graph models differ from his or her own, different variants of graph model systems are required to describe conflicts. Each variant of graph model system corresponds to a configuration of awareness, which is a set of ordered combinations of DMs' viewpoints. <br /><br /> Perceptual stability analysis is a new procedure that applies to graph model systems. Its objective is to help an <em>outside</em> analyst predict possible resolutions, and gauge the robustness and sustainability of these predictions. Perceptual stability analysis takes a two-phase approach. In Phase 1, the stability of each state in each perceptual graph model is assessed from the point of view of the owner of the model, for each DM in the model, using standard or perceptual solution concepts, depending on the owner's awareness of others' perceptions. (In this research, only perceptual solution concepts for the 2-decision maker case are developed. ) In Phase 2, meta-stability analysis is employed to consolidate the stability assessments of a state in all perceptual graph models and across all variants of awareness. Distinctive modes of equilibria are defined, which reflect incompatibilities in DMs' perceptions and viewpoints but nonetheless provide important insights into possible resolutions of conflict. <br /><br /> The possibility principle and perceptual stability analysis are integrative techniques that can be used as a basis for empathetically studying the interaction of emotion and reasoning in the context of strategic conflict. In general, these new techniques expand current modeling and analysis capabilities, thereby facilitating realistic, descriptive models without exacting too great a cost in modeling complexity. In particular, these two theoretical advances enhance the applicability of the Graph Model for Conflict Resolution to real-world disputes by integrating emotion and perception, common ingredients in almost all conflicts. <br /><br /> To demonstrate that the new developments are practical, two illustrative applications to real-world conflicts are presented: the US-North Korea conflict and the confrontation between Russia and Chechen Rebels. In both cases, the analysis yields new strategic insights and improved advice.