The efficacy of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) in labour dispute resolution : a critical comparative analysis of Botswana, South Africa and Zimbabwe

Abstract

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.