Abstract
As amended, the South African Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 has the crucial aim of ensuring that there is efficiency in resolving labour disputes. The study aimed to explore the effectiveness and efficiencies of the Bargaining Council in handling labour disputes in the South African public service sector. The internal grievance handling procedures were argued to be taking too long with no settlement agreements reached. Failure by parties to resolve grievances through the internal procedure impacts the employment relationship, since parties are assumed to have shared goals and a collective responsibility to safeguard the success of the workplace. Bargaining councils remain the primary mechanism for dispute resolution in South Africa. The study became vital in establishing the effectiveness and efficiencies of the bargaining council in handling labour disputes.
The study employed the qualitative research approach. The researcher's focus was on meaning-making and understanding of people about the situation. Therefore, this approach was considered appropriate as the study aimed to understand the bargaining council employees in handling labour disputes in the South African public service sector. Secondary sources of law such as journal articles, textbooks, bargaining council Annual Reports and legislation were used to determine and explore the success and efficiencies of the bargaining council as comprehensively as possible. In this regard, to ascertain the effectiveness and efficiencies of the bargaining council in handling labour disputes as required by the Labour Relations Act, the research was done from the time disputes are captured and screened on the system until the process of getting them finalized through dispute resolution processes.
The study's findings revealed that several factors cause ineffectiveness and inefficiencies of the bargaining council in handling labour disputes. Those factors were the improper dispute referral, postponement of hearings, the complexity of matters, enforcements and reviews of arbitration awards, mandate and lack of preparedness by parties, capacity challenges and the use of legal representation.
v
The disputes that the employees and their union representatives do not correctly refer to were causing more effect on the resolution of labour disputes. It was further found that the postponement of hearings has a main core effect on the performance of the bargaining Council. Parties in the dispute were found not to take the conciliation proceedings seriously, which led to outcome certificates of non-resolution being issued without the sitting. The study showed that parties, particularly employers, do not appear for conciliation hearings, or they appear only to mention that they do not have a mandate. Arbitration postponements were found to be emanating from parties in the disputes. If the bargaining council does not grant the postponement, parties continue to seek postponement before the commissioner at the hearing.
The meaning and implications of the findings entail that employees and union representatives lack knowledge of how the dispute is referred to by the bargaining council and the nature of the disputes that fall within the jurisdiction of the bargaining council. Findings further mean that the not properly referred conflicts cause the delay in dispute resolution, and as such, they affect the competence and the effectiveness of resolving disputes. The results mean the conciliation hearings are rendered fruitless as they are not taken seriously by parties. Parties themselves drag the completion of matters as they persist in seeking postponements before commissioners if the bargaining council does not grant it. Findings also mean the incompetence of legal representatives for dragging cases as if they were matters of the courts. This further means that some commissioners are still incompetent to issue the no quality awards and require training.