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.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:netd.ac.za/oai:union.ndltd.org:nmmu/vital:9429 |
| Date | January 2011 |
| Creators | Koorapetse, Michael Moemedi Sean |
| Publisher | Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University, Faculty of Business and Economic Sciences |
| Source Sets | South African National ETD Portal |
| Language | English |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Thesis, Masters, MA |
| Format | xiv, 80 leaves, pdf |
| Rights | Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University |
Page generated in 0.0024 seconds