Resolving Dismissal Disputes: A Comparative Analysis of Public Arbitration Bodies in South Africa and England

Alternative dispute resolution is often proven to be an effective and preferable means of resolving dismissal disputes. A coherent and cooperative working environment is not always possible in the developing workplace today. Thus, it is critical that an employer and employee are able to resort to effective means of dispute resolution when conflicts arise. The adjudicating system of the courts is notorious for being tedious, expensive and often too legalistic for employment disputes; public arbitration aims to curtail these difficulties by providing an efficient, cost-effective and informal dispute resolution service. Public arbitration bodies seek to overcome the challenges posed by court proceedings by resolving disputes within a specific timeframe, providing applicants with a cost-free service and reducing informalities, in part by limiting the need for legal representation during proceedings. As South Africa was once a colony of Britain, South Africa and England have a historical link which makes them appropriate comparators when determining progression. Based on their similar approach to dispute resolution through arbitration, it is possible to consider the extent to which each country’s employment arbitration service, ACAS in England and the CCMA in South Africa, has achieved its objectives. This dissertation evaluates the use of public arbitration in resolving dismissal disputes in England and South Africa. As a comparative study, it concentrates on and compares the efficiency, accessibility and informality of each country’s employment dispute resolution system, with a particular focus on dismissal disputes. The analysis presented in this dissertation was able to determine the need for improvement in both arbitration systems. It is observed that the deficiencies found in the CCMA can be resolved by learning from the strengths of ACAS, and vice versa. Although each arbitration body aims to provide resolution with the least amount of formalities, both systems can improve their operations by using client feedback and implementing rigorous quality control measures. These recommendations aim to set out ways to improve the effectiveness of each system with the intention of conducting dismissal disputes as succinctly as possible.

Grantor dc:publisher.institution

Department of Commercial Law

Year dc:date.issued

2018

Author dc:creator

• Adam, Aisha

Advisor dc:contributor.advisor

• Fergus, Emma

Language dc:language.iso

eng

Handle dc:identifier.uri

http://hdl.handle.net/11427/29771

OAI identifier oai:identifier

oai:open.uct.ac.za:11427/29771