Legal review of the mandatory mediation process in South Africa
Issue: Vol 1 No. 1 (2016)
Journal: Mediation Theory and Practice
Judicial understandings of mediation in the context of South Africa’s Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration are evaluated from reported decisions where a party sought to set aside a settlement agreement. What is apparent is that courts generally understand that the process of mandatory mediation can be robust and evaluative. The acceptable borderline for advice-giving, scenario-setting, pressure to settle and monitoring the settlement agreement is fact-specific. There is sufficient discrepancy between the cases to show that judicial assessment varies. Generally the courts seem to have no great concern over the breach of mediator confidentiality required in judicial review and none of the commissioners refused to cooperate in the review process.
Author: Alan John Rycroft
American Arbitration Association (2005) Model Standards of Conduct for Mediators. Adopted by the American Arbitration Association, the American Bar Association, and the Association for Conflict Resolution. New York: American Arbitration Association. Retrieved on 7 August 2015 from .
Benjamin, P. (2013) Assessing South Africa’s Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA). ILO working paper no. 47. Geneva: Governance and Tripartism Department, International Labour Office. Retrieved on 7 August 2015 from .
Bhorat, H., Pauw, K. and Mncube, L. (2009) Understanding the Efficiency and Effectiveness of the Dispute Resolution System in South Africa: An Analysis of CCMA Data. Working paper no. 09/137, 1 July. Cape Town: Development Policy Research Unit.
Brand, J. (2000) CCMA: achievements and challenges – lessons from the first three years. Industrial Law Journal (South African) 21: 77–98.
Coben, J. R. and Thompson, P. N. (2006) Disputing irony: a systematic look at litigation about mediation. Harvard Negotiation Law Review 11: 43–146.
Cockburn, T. L. and Shirley, M. J. (2003) Setting aside agreements reached at court annexed mediation: procedural grounds and the role of unconscionability. University of Western Australia Law Review 31(1): 70–86.
Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (2014) Annual Report 2013/14. Johannesburg: Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration.
Du Toit, D., Godfrey, S., Cooper, C., Giles, G., Cohen, T., Conradie, B. and Steenkamp, A. (2015) Labour Relations Law: A Comprehensive Guide (6th edn). Durban: LexisNexis.
Freedman, L. R. and Prigoff, M. L. (1986–7) Confidentiality in mediation: the need for protection. Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution 2: 37–45.
Korobkin, R. B. (2005) The Role of Law in Settlement. In M. L. Moffitt and R. C. Bordone (eds) The Handbook of Dispute Resolution 254–76. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Steenkamp, A. and Bosch, C. (2012) Labour dispute resolution under the 1995 LRA: problems, pitfalls and potential. In R. le Roux and A. Rycroft (eds) Reinventing Labour Law 120–47. Cape Town: Juta Law.