scholarly journals TOWARDS AN EFFECTIVE KENYAN LABOUR DISPUTE RESOLUTION SYSTEM: A COMPARISON WITH THE SOUTH AFRICAN LABOUR DISPUTE RESOLUTION SYSTEM

Obiter ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 39 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Johana K Gathongo ◽  
Adriaan van der Walt
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
Comparative Approach ◽  
Labour Relations ◽  
Resolution System ◽  
Labour Dispute ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Labour Standards ◽  
International Labour Standards ◽  
The Government ◽  
Dispute Resolution System

There have been notable concerns in the current dual dispute resolution system in Kenya. The problems include protracted referral timeframes for dismissal disputes, non-regulation of maximum timeframes for the agreed extension after 30 days conciliation period has lapsed, the absence of statutory timeframes for appointing a conciliator/ commissioner and arbitration process under both the Labour Relations Act, 2007 and the Employment Act, 2007. Likewise, the responsibility of resolving statutory labour disputes in Kenya is still heavily under the control of the government through the Ministry of Labour. There is still no independent statutory dispute resolution institution as envisaged by the Labour Relations Act, 2007. As a result, the Kenyan dispute resolution system has been criticised for lack of impartiality leading to the increase in strikes and lockouts.This article examines the effectiveness of the Kenyan labour dispute resolution system. The article evaluates the provisions of international labour standards relevant to labour dispute resolution. The article illuminates and describes the bottlenecks in the current Kenyan system and argues that it does not adequately respond to the needs of parties in terms of the international labour conventions. A comparative approach with South Africa is adopted to see how independent institutions, such as the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration, Bargaining Councils and specialised Labour Courts can lead to effective dispute resolution. In view of that, a wide range of remedial intervention intended to address the gaps and flaws highlighted in the study are made. Systematically, the article provides suggestions and possible solutions for a better institutional framework and processes to address them.

scholarly journals THE NAMIBIAN LABOUR DISPUTE RESOLUTION SYSTEM: SOME LESSONS FROM SOUTH AFRICA

Obiter ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 35 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Felix Musukubili ◽  
Adriaan van der Walt
Keyword(s):  
South Africa ◽  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
Industrial Relations ◽  
Comparative Approach ◽  
Political Systems ◽  
Labour Relations ◽  
Resolution System ◽  
Labour Dispute ◽  
Social Partners ◽  
Short And Long Term

In Namibia and South Africa respectively, there are social partners (social partners are the workers’ and employers’ organisations in terms of the ILO classification) with common and divergent short- and long-term interests. These divergent interests must be accommodated and reconciled and this process is the subject of labour law and industrial relations. However, the processes employed in Namibia and South Africa vary. The purpose of this comparative article is to highlight and explain the differences between and similarities of the two respective countries’ labour dispute-resolution systems. This comparative approach brings to bear two schools of thought, the first being the convergence school, and the second is the divergence school. The convergence school holds that the influence of industrialisation gradually brings the labour-relations systems of various countries closer to one another. The divergence school, on the other hand, maintains that labour relations are sub-systems of political systems and manifestations of prevailing social and economic conditions. Despite these perspectives above, it should not be taken for granted that systems and institutions are transplantable as it is argued that any attempt to do so may entail a wish of rejection. The reason for this view is premised on the basis that Namibia and South Africa are not identical; there are distinct differences in certain areas, such as economic development. However, the differences between the systems do not mean that Namibia cannot adopt solutions that have proved successful in South Africa or vice versa, and therefore a degree of transferability may be accepted.

scholarly journals Złożenie skargi przez konsumenta za pośrednictwem ODR (Online Dispute Resolution) – internetowego systemu rozstrzygania sporów

2019 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 183-194
Author(s):  
Anna Rogacka-Łukasik
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
Alternative Dispute Resolution ◽  
The Other ◽  
Online Dispute Resolution ◽  
Other Hand ◽  
Resolution System ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Technical Innovations ◽  
Modern Form ◽  
Dispute Resolution System

ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution), as a non-judicial resolution of disputes, is a wide range of mechanisms that aim to put an end to a conflict without the need of conducting a trial before the court. On the other hand, the modern form of ADR is ODR (Online Dispute Resolution) – an online dispute resolution system that is the expression of the newest means of communication and technical innovations in order to help in non-judicial dispute resolving. The goal of this publication is to present the ODR platform and, in particular, to describe the process of filing a complaint by the consumer by means of it.

scholarly journals REFORMING THE SOUTH AFRICAN SOCIAL SECURITY ADJUDICATION SYSTEM: INNOVATIVE EXPERIENCES FROM SOUTH AFRICAN NON-SOCIAL SECURITY JURISDICTIONS

2016 ◽  
Vol 19 ◽  
pp. 1
Author(s):  
Mathias Ashu Tako Nyenti
Keyword(s):  
Social Security ◽  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
South African ◽  
Access To Justice ◽  
Constitutional Rights ◽  
The South ◽  
Labour Relations ◽  
Resolution System ◽  
Dispute Resolution System ◽  
Limited Scope

There is currently no uniform social security dispute resolution system in South Africa due to the piecemeal fashion in which schemes were established or protection against individual risks regulated. The result is that each statute provides for its own dispute resolution institution(s) and processes. There are also various gaps and challenges in the current social security dispute resolution systems, some of these relating to the uncoordinated and fragmented nature of the system; inaccessibility of some social security institutions; inappropriateness of some current appeal institutions; the lack of a systematic approach in establishing appeal institutions; a limited scope of jurisdiction and powers of adjudication institutions; inconsistencies in review and/or appeal provisions in various laws; an unavailability of alternative dispute resolution procedures; and an absence of institutional independence of adjudication institutions or forums. The system is therefore in need of reform. In developing an appropriate system, much can be learned from innovative experiences in comparative South African non-social security jurisdictions on the establishment of effective and efficient dispute resolution frameworks. Dispute resolution systems in the labour relations, business competition regulation and consumer protection jurisdictions have been established to realise the constitutional rights of their users (especially the rights of access to justice, to a fair trial and to just administrative action). They thus provide a benchmark for the development of the South African social security dispute resolution system.

scholarly journals COMPARING THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL COURTS OF CHINA WITH THE SINGAPORE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL COURT

2019 ◽  
Vol 68 (04) ◽  
pp. 903-942 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zhengxin Huo ◽  
Man Yip
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
Comparative Approach ◽  
Belt And Road Initiative ◽  
Resolution System ◽  
Belt And Road ◽  
The Belt And Road ◽  
Dispute Resolution System ◽  
Commercial Courts

AbstractThe article critically reviews the litigation framework of the Chinese International Commercial Court (‘CICC’) using a comparative approach, taking as a benchmark the Singapore International Commercial Court (‘SICC’)—another Asian international commercial court situated within the Belt and Road Initiative (‘BRI’) geography. It argues that the CICC, despite being lauded as a visionary step toward an innovative, efficient and trustworthy dispute resolution system, does not live up to those grand claims on closer scrutiny. The discussion shows that the CICC is in many respects insular and conservative when compared with the SICC. The distinctions between the two litigation frameworks may be explained by the differences in objectives. Whereas the SICC was created to compete for international judicial business and bolster Singapore as a leading dispute resolution hub, the CICC is presently designed to provide a legal safeguard in BRI disputes with Chinese elements. This article also identifies major challenges confronting the CICC and sets out proposals for change.

Law and the Culture of Capital: A Critical Perspective on Labour’s Right to Associate in Developing Societies

2002 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-22 ◽  
Author(s):  
L. A. Visano ◽  
Nicholas Adete Bastine
Keyword(s):  
Socioeconomic Development ◽  
Law And Economics ◽  
Complex Form ◽  
Labour Relations ◽  
Legal Narratives ◽  
Labour Standards ◽  
International Obligations ◽  
Developing Societies ◽  
International Labour Standards ◽  
The Impact

Informed by critical theory, this paper focuses on the dialectical interplay between law and economics evident in the practices and policies of the International Labour Organization (ILO). It is argued, first, that governments do not comply with international labour standards because of the inherent weaknesses of the ILO as the source and enforcer of international obligations. Second, the parochial politicization of rights defers to the arrogance of ignorance. Third, developing societies are overwhelmingly preoccupied with socioeconomic development. In exploring the impact of ILO practices on developing societies within the policies of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank (WB), this paper asks the following questions: to what extent does capital form and inform the law in relation to conflicting economic narratives of development and nationhood? How and why does the ILO talk up legal narratives of regulation and contest? How does law hegemonize capital integration? How does law symbolically function to mediate labour relations meanings and manipulate the inaction of civil society? Within the larger structure of “market forces,” the commodity of law is a complex form of social communication that diverts attention away from the political impact of predatory economies.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document