Abstract
This dissertation examines the comparative frameworks of labour dispute resolution in South
Africa, Mozambique, and the United Kingdom, with a particular focus on the design,
effectiveness, and accessibility of their respective alternative dispute resoluti on (ADR)
mechanisms. The study is motivated by the growing recognition that effective labour dispute
resolution is central to industrial harmony, social justice, and economic productivity. Drawing
from statutory provisions, judicial precedents, and scholarly commentary, the research analyses
how each jurisdiction balances efficiency, fairness, and access to justice in addressing
employment-related disputes.
In South Africa, the study explores the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 as the primary
legislative instrument underpinning ADR processes, emphasi sing the roles of the Commission
for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA) and various bargaining councils. It
highlights the strong institutional framework, the integration of mediation and arbitration, and
the system of judicial oversight by the Labour Court and Labour Appeal Court that ensures
procedural fairness. The Mozambican framework, by contrast, is evaluated through the labour
law and the functions of the Labour Mediation and Arbitration Centre (COMAL). While
Mozambique’s system demonstrates the government’s commitment to peaceful dispute
resolution, the study notes challenges such as compulsory mediation, financial constraints f or
workers, and administrative inefficiencies that may hinder access to justice.
The dissertation further analyses the United Kingdom’s (UK’s) ADR model, focusing on the
Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (ACAS) and the Employment Tribunal system.
The UK’s long-standing emphasis on voluntary conciliation, early settlement, and statutory
regulation of employment disputes illustrates a mature and flexible ADR system. However, the
study also identifies certain shortcomings, including delays, procedural complexity, and limited
accessibility for unrepresented parties.
The comparative analysis reveals that while all three jurisdictions recogni se ADR as a
cornerstone of effective labour relations, their success varies depending on institutional
capacity, legal culture, and socio-economic context. South Africa’s model stands out because
of its strong statutory and institutional design, Mozambique’s model for its evolving framework
aimed at inclusivity, and the UK’s model for its procedural sophistication and emphasis on
conciliation. The study concludes that continuous reform, capacity building, and harmonisation ...