Since the incorporation of the separation of powers doctrine into the South African Constitution, the problem has arisen that, each of the three tiers of government, the Executive, the Judiciary and the Legislature, has sought to protect exclusive jurisdiction over matters that fall within what constitutes that tier's own realm of authority. The effects of this are especially apparent in the field of dispute resolution in administrative law. The administration is predominantly the province of the Executive, and to a lesser extent, the Legislature. Thus, the acceptability of judicial review in dispute resolution and generally, the intrusion by the Judiciary in matters of the administration is perennially questioned and challenged by both the Executive and the Legislature. In this context, the duty to exhaust internal remedies assumes a pivotal role. It offers a compromise, by prescribing qualified exclusion of judicial review as a first port of call for dispute resolution while simultaneously entrusting initial dispute resolution to the administration. Often, this approach yields tangible results, but from a constitutional and fundamental rights perspective, the duty to exhaust internal remedies is problematic. Its exclusion of judicial review goes against, not only the right of access to court in section 34 of the Constitution, but also the rule of law, to the extent that the rule of law allows for the challenging, in court, of illegal administrative action as soon as it is taken. This thesis analyses the constitutionality of the duty to exhaust internal remedies in section 7(2) of the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act by assessing the consistency of section 7(2) of the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act with the right of access to court in section 34 of the Constitution. The thesis initially examines the origins and historical development of the duty to exhaust internal remedies in the English law, and the subsequent adoption of the duty to exhaust internal remedies into the South African common law for the purpose of interpreting and comprehending the duty to exhaust internal remedies as it is appears in section 7(2) of the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act. Ultimately, the study focuses on and identifies the deficiencies in the current approach to the question of the constitutionality of section 7(2) of the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, and offers suggestions on how the law might be developed.

Section 213 of the Labour Relations Act defines ’strike’ as the partial or complete concerted refusal to work, or the retardation or obstruction of work, by persons who are or have been employed by the same employer or by different employers, for the purpose of remedying a grievance or resolving a dispute in respect of any matter of mutual interest between the employer and employee, and any reference to “work” this definition includes overtime work, whether it is voluntary or compulsory. According to Mcllroy: “As long as our society is divided between those who own and control the means of production and those who only have the ability to work, strikes will be inevitable because they are the ultimate means workers have of protecting themselves.” 1 The Constitutional Court justified the exclusion of a constitutional right to lock out and the inclusion of a constitutional right to strike by indicating that the right to strike is not equivalent to a right to lock out and is essential for workplace democracy. 2 The right to strike is essential to bolster collective bargaining and thereby to give employees the power to bargain effectively with employers. The employers on the According to the Constitutional Court employers enjoy greater social and economic power compared to individual workers and may exercise a wide range of power against workers through a range of weapons, such as dismissal, the employment of alternative or replacement labour, the unilateral implementation of new terms and conditions of employment, and the exclusion of workers from the workplace. To combat this and have a say in the workplace, the Constitutional Court held that “employees need to act in concert to provide them collectively with sufficient power to bargain effectively with employers and exercise collective power primarily through the mechanism of strike action”. The importance of the right to strike in creating workplace democracy is also reflected in a number of Labour Court and Labour Appeal Court judgments. other hand have economic strength that is used to bargain effectively. That is why the strike enjoys constitutional protection, whereas the lock-out does not. / Abstract

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.

This treatise will focus on the review of labour arbitration awards provided for under the oversight of the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA), bargaining councils, statutory councils, accredited private agencies and approved private arbitration tribunals. The general grounds of review applicable to the arbitration awards of the different bodies are set out. Thereafter the case of Carephone (Pty) Limited v Marcus NO & others (1998) 19 ILJ 1452 (LAC) is analysed and the core principles pertaining to the justifiability test are clarified for the first time in the forum of the Labour Appeal Court. The judicial rationale for the relevance and applicability of the test to CCMA arbitration proceedings and criticisms of the test are examined. The justifiability tests are only applicable to review proceedings in CCMA matters and not available to private arbitration review matters. There are however three approaches which are being suggested for the application of the justifiability tests to private arbitration review. Firstly, it is suggested that the Arbitration Act could be interpreted to include the justifiability test under the statutory review grounds. Secondly, the arbitration agreements could be interpreted to include an implied term that the arbitrator is under a duty to give justifiable awards. Finally, it can be submitted that the law should be developed by reading into all arbitration agreements the ability to arbitrators to give justifiable awards. Since the judgment of Sidumo v Rustenburg Platinum Mines [2007] 12 BLLR 1097 (CC) various critical questions arose in relation to the interpretation and application for the purpose of dealing with subsequent review applications. Firstly, this research paper will seek to establish whether the courts in subsequent matters to the Sidumo judgment have interpreted reasonableness as a test or ground for review. Secondly the research paper will scrutinise case law whether the reviewing court is entitled to rely on and consider reasons other than those provided for by the commissioner in his award to determine inter alia, the reasonableness of his decision arrived at. The Constitutional Court in the Sidumo case rejected the so-called employer’s test, stating that ultimately the commissioner’s sense of fairness is what must prevail and not the employer’s view. Consequently an impartial determination whether or not a dismissal was fair is likely to promote labour peace amongst the labour force. The test arrived at by the Constitutional Court in the Sidumo case for determining whether a decision or arbitration award of a CCMA commissioner is reasonable, is a stringent test that will ensure that such awards are not easily interfered with. The question to be asked in determining whether there has been compliance with the standard is whether the decision of the commissioner is one which a reasonable decision maker could have reached. This approach will underpin the primary objectives of the Labour Relations Act which is the effective resolution of disputes. This finding will be apparent from important cases decided and discussed after the Sidumo landmark ruling.

This Master of Laws dissertation is a treatise of “The efficacy of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) in labour disputes: a critical comparative analysis of Botswana, South Africa (RSA) and Zimbabwe.” Alternative Dispute Resolution hereinafter referred to as (“ADR”) has attracted so much research ado worldwide with policy makers alive to its possibilities in so far as it ought to shed off the burden of the courts in handling disputes. Courts are considered inundated with unresolved cases taking many years to finalise. ADR is therefore touted, not only the panacea, but the cheaper, efficient and effective alternative to normal court process. This study was saddled with the common challenges of definition, scope and methodology as does most scientific studies, especially to locate the concept ADR in the plethora of views from prominent exponent-s of the discipline. This study labored on the considered view that ADR is essentially an ‘out of court settlement approach to dispensing with disputes involving an attempt by disputants to rope in an impartial third party to aid finality to the respective wrangle. The lack of a methodological approach to treat this subject matter, made this study more challenging. The study had to therefore rely on a hypothetical model developed after gleaning through various scholarly views 1 that sought to treat the subject of ADR efficacy in labour dispute resolution. The study contented with the strongly held view 2 that ADR is an efficacious approach in resolving disputes outside the court system. As to whether this was the case in Botswana, RSA and Zimbabwe in so far as labour dispute resolution is concerned was the major challenge this study was seized with? A model was formulated which envisaged that efficaciousness of ADR may be achieved if three conditions or criteria are present within a jurisdiction, namely (1) ADR Background Conditions that comprise (a) adequate legislative and political support; (b) Supportive institutional and cultural norms, (c) adequate and competent manpower, (d) sufficient funding support, and (e) power-parity of disputants; (2) ADR Program Design comprising of (a) Planning and preparation and (b) Operations and implementation and finally (3) ADR Measures (a) Client satisfaction; (b) Time efficient; (c) Cost saving and (d) Settlement & enforcement. This study measured the situations obtaining in the three countries using these three-pronged criteria. In all three measures3 this study found that although all the three countries still have a long way before their ADR became as efficacious as would be reasonably possible, RSA has made many strides such as legislative enactments immediately upon attaining independence that sought to address the injustices of the past and thereby installing structures for enforcing industrial democracy 4, while Botswana and Zimbabwe took 5 years 5 and over 10 years 6 respectively after attaining independence. RSA established an independent body for dispensing with labour dispute settlement7 while Botswana8 and Zimbabwe 9 are still reluctant to do so, relying rather on their labour ministries often marinated in bureaucratic bottlenecks hence stalling efficacy of ADR. While RSA makes effort to provide adequate and competent manpower because of sufficient funding, Botswana and Zimbabwe still struggle to dispense with disputes under their labour departments who are either inadequately skilled or also accused of favouritism in the case of Zimbabwe.10 All the three countries are regarded as unequal societies which tends to sway the power-parity of disputants with capitalists still wielding unbridled powers in dispute outcomes. South Africa enacted section 143 to the Labour Relations Act 11 which empowers the Director of CCMA to certify an arbitral award, giving it the same force as an order of the Magistrate Court. This has cut off the time and administrative burden of having to register an arbitral award with the court so as to obtain writs of executions and enforce it, a practice which is still prevalent in Zimbabwe. The Department of Labour in South Africa has made funding available to the CCMA to assist employees who are not in a financial position to enforce awards in their favour.12 The funding is aimed at employees who are too indigent to afford the costs of enforcement.13 These employees are deemed to be: (a) Employees who earn below the earnings threshold (currently at R205 433.30 per annum) – proof of income will be required by the CCMA. There is no record regarding enforcement or ease of enforcement of ADR outcomes in Botswana and Zimbabwe or at least this study is aware of. The governments of Botswana and Zimbabwe have been accused of using a heavy hand in determining wages, the right to strike and often curtailing union power through declaring certain sectors essential services. RSA’s Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration hereinafter after referred to as (the “CCMA”)14 runs an electronic system of case management by which cases are screened and assigned commissioners whereas Zimbabwe and Botswana still rely on manual systems often inefficiently managed especially when it comes to allocating matters to ADR interventionists.15 In Zimbabwe the challenge of resources is acute often the Labour Officers lacking a simple photocopier and postage stamps to dispense with administration of disputes. This dissertation found that Botswana and Zimbabwe lack publicly available information from which to infer the efficaciousness of ADR practices therein. Measuring client satisfaction, efficiency and cost effectiveness, enforcement and settlement has not been tackled with ease, which was different when it came to RSA. This study argues that RSA’s ADR is efficacious rated at 75% attainment of settlement of disputes, despite accusations of failing to offer disputants options and job retention at the end of ADR intervention. Botswana and Zimbabwe on the measures raised above are not yet close to achieving efficaciousness based on the above criteria. The challenges need to be addressed to ensure that in all three measures ADR affords Botswana, RSA and Zimbabwe disputants a cheaper, efficient and effective alternative to dispensing with labour disputes. This study concluded with recommendations arising from the three measures ADR Background Conditions; ADR Program Design and (3) ADR Measures could be implemented towards achieving an efficacious ADR regime for the three countries and beyond. / Mercantile Law / LL.M.

The system of Alternative Dispute Resolution, commonly known as ADR, comprises multiple informal processes. Traditional processes of negotiation, mediation and arbitration are primary processes within the system of ADR. The elements of the primary processes have been combined with one another or with those of public process to form hybrid ADR processes original only to the system of ADR. These hybrid processes are: rent-a-judge, the mini-trial, the summary jury trial, neutral evaluation and mediation/arbitration. Under the auspices of ADR, derivative processes have also been developed, such as expedited arbitration, documents-only arbitration, final-offer arbitration and quality arbitration. Each process is distinct and separate, having its own unique form, function and method of transforming a dispute. Outwardly, this represents a diverse collection of disjunctive processes. Yet an introspective analysis shows that there is an innate centrality that originates in core principles that bind individual processes to each other and to a unified body of theory. These foundational principles of ADR are replicated in each of its processes. In these terms, ADR is therefore conceptualised as a pluralistic system of dispute resolution that consists of autonomous and individual systems of process that conform to a central body of general theory and consensual principles. As a method of extracting the fundamental principles of ADR, the discontinuities and continuities between the theory and principles of civil procedure, as a unitary system .of procedure, and ADR processes are explored. However, in its conclusions, the thesis rejects the premises of a unitary system of procedure as forming the basis for the theory and principles of ADR. Instead, the contrary notion is advanced that ADR is an independent system of dispute resolution which is based on a theory of processual pluralism and supported by cogent processual principles. / Constitutional, International & Indigenous Law / LL.D.

Thesis (LLM (Public Law))--University of Stellenbosch, 2009. / ENGLISH ABSTRACT: The first part of this thesis deals with the right of lateral and subjacent support and explains how it should be applied in South African law. The thesis illustrates how the neighbour law principles of lateral support were incorrectly extended to govern conflicts pertaining to subjacent support that arose in South African mining law. From 1911 right up to 2007, these two clearly distinguishable concepts were treated as synonymous principles in both academic writing and case law. The thesis plots the historical development of this extension of lateral support principles to subjacent support conflicts. In doing so, it examines the main source of South Africa’s law of support, namely English law. The thesis then shows how the Supreme Court of Appeal in Anglo Operations Ltd v Sandhurst Estates (Pty) Ltd 2007 (2) SA 363 (SCA) illustrated how the English law doctrine of subjacent support, with all its attendant ramifications, could not be useful in resolving disputes that arise between a land surface owner and a mineral rights holder in South African mining law. The second of half of the thesis investigates the constitutional implications of the Supreme Court of Appeal’s decision in Anglo Operations in light of the systemic changes introduced by the Minerals and Petroleum Resources Development Act 28 of 2002. In terms of this new Act, all the mineral and petroleum resources of South Africa are the common heritage of the people of South Africa, and the state is the custodian thereof. This means that landowners are no longer involved in the granting of mineral rights to subsequent holders. In light of the Anglo Operations decision, landowners in the new dispensation of mineral exploitation face the danger of losing the use and enjoyment of some/all their land. The thesis therefore examines the implications of the statutory provisions in South African legislation (new and old) that have/had an impact on the relationship between landowners and mineral right holders with regard to the question of subjacent support, as well as the implications of the Anglo Operations decision for cases where mineral rights have been granted under the statutory framework. / AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: Die eerste deel van die tesis handel oor die reg op sydelingse en oppervlakstut en hoe dit in die Suid-Afrikaanse reg toegepas behoort te word. Die tesis wys hoe die bureregbeginsels rakende sydelingse stut verkeerdelik uitgebrei is na konflikte rakende oppervlakstut wat in die Suid-Afrikaanse mynreg ontstaan het. Vanaf 1911 en tot in 2007 is hierdie twee duidelik verskillende konsepte in sowel akademiese geskrifte en in die regspraak as sinonieme behandel. Die tesis sit die historiese ontwikkeling van die uitbreiding van laterale stut-beginsels na oppervlakstut-konflikte uiteen. In die proses word die hoofbron van die Suid-Afrikaanse reg ten aansien van steun, naamlik die Engelse reg, ondersoek. Die tesis wys uit hoe die Hoogste Hof van Appèl in Anglo Operations Ltd v Sandhurst Estates (Pty) Ltd 2007 (2) SA 363 (SCA) beslis het dat die Engelse leerstuk van oppervlakstut met al sy meegaande implikasies nie in die Suid-Afrikaanse reg sinvol aangewend kan word om dispute wat tussen die oppervlakeienaar van grond en die mineraalreghouer ontstaan, op te los nie. Die tweede helfte van die tesis ondersoek die grondwetlike implikasies van die Hoogste Hof van Appèl se beslissing in Anglo Operations in die lig van die sistemiese wysigings wat deur die Wet op Ontwikkeling van Minerale en Petroleumhulpbronne 28 van 2002 tot stand gebring is. Ingevolge die nuwe Wet is alle mineraal- en petroleumhulpbronne die gemeenskaplike erfenis van alle mense van Suid-Afrika en die staat is die bewaarder daarvan. Dit beteken dat grondeienaars nie meer betrokke is by die toekenning van mineraalregte aan houers daarvan nie. In die lig van die Anglo Operations-beslissing loop grondeienaars die gevaar om die voordeel en gebruik van al of dele van hulle grond te verloor. Die tesis ondersoek daarom die implikasies van verskillende bepalings in Suid-Afrikaanse wetgewing (oud en nuut) wat ‘n impak op die verhouding tussen die grondeienaar en die houer van die mineraalregte het, sowel as die implikasies van Anglo Operations vir gevalle waar mineraalregte onder die nuwe statutêre raamwerk en toegeken is.

Abstract not available

While several Australian and international studies have explored the family lawyer-client interaction, these studies have been limited to investigations of discrete areas of the lawyerclient relationship and have been necessarily limited in their methodologies. The present study employed a quantitative empirical methodology in an Australian wide field study of 230 family lawyers and 94 clients that investigated the family lawyer-client interaction from a procedural justice framework. Using multivariate analyses, the study establishes that the Tyler and Blader two-component model of procedural justice applies in the lawyer-client dyad and is influenced by the approach of the lawyer, the emotional response of the client, and the level of co-party conflict that the client is experiencing. Further, the study gives meaning to the terms 'conciliatory and constructive' and 'adversarial' as they apply to family law dispute resolution. The study establishes a construct to measure the conciliatory and adversarial approach of family lawyers and identifies that lawyers tend to incorporate a mixture of the two into their work. The results also identify four distinct behavioural factors that characterise the two approaches: the client-centred and interest-based factors characterise the conciliatory approach; and the lawyer-directed and court-focused factors characterise the adversarial. The study found that in terms of perceptions of fairness, and feelings of satisfaction, the clients preferred the lawyers who took a client-centred and interest-based approach, but in circumstances where the clients were experiencing high-levels of conflict, or fear for the safety of their children, they also appreciated the lawyer who was lawyer-directed and court-focused. Overall, the study shows that in order to create a fair and satisfying dispute resolution service for their clients, family lawyers need to maintain a fine balance of family lawyering behaviour. On a general level, the study provides a profile of Australian family lawyers in terms of their approach to dispute resolution, their attitude towards ADR processes and their favoured negotiation styles. It also profiles family law clients in terms of their emotional adjustment to the divorce and their perceptions of the family lawyers assisting them to resolve their disputes. The study substantially expands the procedural justice theory base and has significant implications for practical family law education, government policy, family lawyering, and the ADR and collaborative law movements. The study indicates where future research could benefit these communities.

The study aims to review the regulatory powers exercised by the South African Revenue Services (SARS) with regard to the issuing, decline or revocation of a taxpayer’s tax clearance certificate, to highlight any remedial measures and procedures available to the aggrieved taxpayer in order to protect the right of taxpayers to fair administrative action in their dealings with SARS. Previously, a tax clearance certificate was not issued in terms of any statute or provision of any Tax Act. However, since the introduction of the Tax Administration Act, as amended (TAA), the issuing of the tax clearance certificates are more efficiently regulated. The issuing of tax clearance certificate’s must conform to the values and principles prescribed for under current legislation, and more particularly, as espoused under the Constitution of South Africa, 1996 (the Constitution). However, it has been reported some taxpayer were experiencing unreasonable and incomprehensible delays in obtaining responses to the objections lodged with SARS for assessment. Taxpayers seeking resolution of their disputes with SARS, currently opt to incur litigation costs in order to obtain appropriate relief from the High Courts. Taxpayers must take note that there is nothing in Promotion of Administrative Justice Act (PAJA) or the common law, which empowers a Court to order an administrator to take action, including the making of a decision which the administrator is not lawfully allowed to make. The study highlights remedial measures and procedures available to the aggrieved taxpayer to prevent the misapplication of fiscal power by SARS in the issuing of the taxpayer’s compliance status, thus protecting the right to fair administrative action in their dealings with SARS. Taxpayers who are aggrieved by a decision taken by the Revenue Authority are encouraged to timeously address their grievances, commencing with the internal dispute resolution remedies provided for within the TAA. / Financial Accounting / M. Compt. (Accounting Sciences)