Con-arb and med-arb in labour law: evaluating procedural fairness in Tanzania and south africa

This article evaluates the concepts of con-arb (conciliation-arbitration) and med-arb (mediation-arbitration) as dispute resolution mechanisms in labour law, with specific focus on their implications for procedural fairness in Tanzania. While con-arb is firmly established in South African labour jurisprudence, and med-arb has gained traction in comparative dispute. Med-arb as a method of labour dispute resolution in Tanzania is mainly conducted under the Labour Institutions (Mediation and Arbitration) Rules G.N No. 64/2007 and the Labour Institutions Act Cap.300 R.E 2023. However, there are both legal and procedural challenges in its application. These include the absence of clear provisions in the Employment and Labour Relations Act Cap. 366 R.E 2023 as a principal legislation in labour dispute in Tanzania leading to inconsistencies between the principal Act and subsidiary Rules. In contrast, South Africa’s con-arb under the Labour Relations Act No. 66 of 1995 and the Rules for the Conduct of Proceedings before the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration 2023 incorporates defined procedures, including objection rights, mandatory notice and application in certain disputes. The article points out that these gaps in Tanzania hinder fairness, predictability and efficiency in labour dispute resolution. It calls for legislative alignment between the principal and subsidiary laws, clearer procedural rules and strengthening of the CMA through resources, training and systematic documentation.