The role of a commissioner at the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA) and various bargaining councils is evolving. While these positions have historically relied on short-term training and procedural exposure, there is mounting pressure to mandate formal legal qualifications for those who preside over arbitration. These officials perform quasi-judicial duties, including evaluating evidence and interpreting statutes, which carry significant weight for employees and employers alike.
The Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 established the CCMA as an independent body designed to offer accessible dispute resolution. Section 117 states that commissioners must be adequately qualified, but the statute stops short of requiring a law degree. This legislative gap has sparked debate regarding whether administrative experience is enough to handle complex adjudicative tasks. Critics argue that the current standard leads to inconsistent outcomes, as some commissioners struggle with the application of legal principles or the rules of evidence.
The system faces a period of administrative strain where the distinction between informal conciliation and formal arbitration becomes increasingly blurred. Legislators might eventually be forced to weigh the benefits of strict professional standards against the need for broad public access to the forum. A could stabilize the process.
Related: Legal Proceedings Act reimagined as constitutional engagement
Reviewing awards is common.
The frequency of arbitration awards being taken on review indicates a systemic issue. Under Section 145 of the LRA, parties can challenge outcomes if they believe a commissioner committed a gross irregularity or reached an unreasonable conclusion. These review proceedings were intended as an exceptional safeguard rather than a routine second step. Instead, the Labour Court is frequently occupied by correcting errors that could have been avoided if the initial adjudicator possessed more rigorous analytical training.
The volume of these challenges suggests a disconnect between the intended efficiency of the CCMA and the reality of its output. A high number of review applications delay finality, increase litigation costs, and clog the judicial system. When the first instance of adjudication is weak, the entire chain of labor justice suffers from these avoidable bottlenecks.
Related: Legal groups unite for profession’s transformation
Accessibility is a central pillar of the CCMA, but it should not be synonymous with reduced competence. While the conciliation phase remains appropriately informal, the arbitration phase requires a formal, evidence-based approach. Parties appearing before these bodies have a right to expect a process that adheres to the same level of intellectual rigor found in other judicial settings. Proponents of reform suggest that the law should be updated to clarify what constitutes being adequately qualified for such a sensitive role.
The proposed changes would require a structured approach to ensure that the transition is not punitive for existing staff. Strengthening the qualification threshold is intended to reinforce confidence in the system, ensuring that those who decide on livelihoods and business continuity are equipped for the task.
