Abstract
M.Phil.
The Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 introduced new structures for resolution of
labour disputes. The Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration
(CCMA) was established as an independent body to resolve labour disputes. The
CCMA also took over the functions of the old Industrial Court. The Act also
replaced the old Industrial councils with bargaining councils. The function of the
bargaining councils is to play a parallel role to the CCMA in dispute resolution
within their scope of jurisdiction. The purpose of the legislature in establishing the
bargaining councils was to alleviate part of the burden of the CCMA in resolving
of labour disputes. The Act envisaged that the CCMA would resolve disputes
speedily and inexpensively. If bargaining councils fail in their task of resolving
disputes, these disputes are referred back to the CCMA adding to its caseload.
The study seeks to establish the effectiveness of bargaining councils in handling
dispute resolution function and whether they assist the CCMA in alleviating part
of its burden. There are 43 bargaining councils that are accredited by the CCMA to conciliate
and arbitrate disputes. Some bargaining councils are accredited to do both
conciliations and arbitrations but are failing to perform both tasks. Some
bargaining councils are closing down. Other registered bargaining councils do
not apply for accreditation. Disputes that are not handled by these councils are
referred to the CCMA. The CCMA caseload is escalating every year since
inception in 1996. In view of these circumstances the study seeks to understand
from bargaining councils and from both the unions and employers organizations
that are party to the bargaining council agreements, whether there are any
problems that hinder the effectiveness of bargaining councils in dispute
resolution in the private sector. It has been concluded in the study that there are a number of problems that can
cause bargaining councils not to exercise dispute resolution function effectively. It has been established that only few bargaining councils receive a high number
of disputes referred. Bargaining councils are quicker in handling disputes than
the CCMA, however, most bargaining councils receive a small number of
disputes. Bargaining councils also complain about insufficient funds in handling
dispute resolution function. They complain that the subsidy they receive from the
CCMA is not enough for this function. Small bargaining councils are the most
suffering because of low numbers of referrals. It has also been established that
bargaining councils pay their panelists very high rates. The non-accredited
bargaining councils are rejected when applying for accreditation because of not
meeting the required criteria. Employers are negative about belonging to
bargaining councils because they feel it is costly. Some employers who belong to
bargaining councils are also reluctant to contribute to established council's fund.