LABOUR lawyer Caleb Mucheche has encouraged employers to implement alternative dispute resolution (ADR) to resolve disputes that arise within organisations as it is cheaper compared to litigation.
ADR is an informal way of settling disputes, in which a third neutral party plays the role of intercession and assistance, compared to the formal method of settling disputes through litigation.
Under last year’s Labour Amendment Act, the government limited the grounds on which the employer can terminate a contract to two, from the four grounds which existed pre-amendment, making it now harder to fire workers.
Under this amendment, an employee’s contract can only be terminated on two grounds, namely, mutual agreement or breach of contract after a thorough review of the circumstances.
Should an employer want to terminate an employee’s contract outside the legal reasons, it will go for litigation.
“Alternative dispute resolution is an ideal method of dispute resolution as it is non-confrontational, less expensive, confidential and seeks to achieve a win-win between parties,” Mucheche said at the Employers Confederation of Zimbabwe’s (Emcoz) workshop held in Masvingo last week.
“It is also worth noting that the informal way of settling disputes can also be done while the litigation process proceeds on the other hand.”
He noted that the ADR method is efficient and less time-consuming compared to courts.
- Retrenchment regulations streamlined
- Business sweats over Labour Amendment Act
- Plight of mine workers worsens: Union
- Employers urged to adopt alternative dispute resolutions
Keep Reading
“When appropriate settlement processes are made available, many disputes can be resolved more efficiently and with greater satisfaction to all parties. Lengthy and costly litigation can be avoided and productive results are more likely to be achieved,” Mucheche said.
“The court system is overloaded. It cannot hold a trial for every lawsuit that gets filed. As a result, it can take several years for a legal case to go to trial. One of the benefits of ADR is that resolution is fast. A settlement or arbitration award can be issued within a few weeks or months of filing a lawsuit.”
Mucheche said the ADR is more flexible and sped up the resolution process.
“The ADR process is less rigid. Unlike a trial date that can vary because of the backlog, ADR can be scheduled at any time. This not only provides greater flexibility, but also helps to speed up the resolution of the conflict,” he said.
“ADR reduces costs because of the use of fewer and less paid decision-makers. ADR reduces costs because it does not require much support such as clerks, bailiffs, and court reporters.”
He said there are no permanent costs to support the processes under ADR. ADR institutions are ad hoc in nature. They are set when parties agree to set such. Hence their personnel costs run concurrently with their lifespan. The cost of arbitration may be fixed,” he said.
Emcoz held the workshop in partnership with the International Labour Organisation and National Social Security Authority.
Mucheche said a neutral third party is selected to preside over all cases that go through ADR.
The neutral third party should have no connections to anyone involved in the lawsuit and no interest in the outcome of the dispute.
In a court trial, the judge is not selected to preside.
“The judge is assigned. This difference is critical, as clients can select a neutral third party with specific subject-matter expertise to help facilitate or arrive at a well-informed resolution.”
