OIT - Developing effective digital case management systems for labour dispute prevention and resolution institutions

X Developing effective digital case management systems for labour dispute prevention and resolution institutions Lessons learned from the ILO 2025 South-South and Triangular Cooperation workshop on digital case management systems Authors / Mahandra Naidoo, Sylvain Baffi, Nada Aridhi

May / 2025 ILO Working Paper 142© International Labour Organization 2025 Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International. See: https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The user is allowed to reuse, share (copy and redistribute), adapt (remix, transform and build upon the original work) as detailed in the licence. The user must clearly credit the ILO as the source of the material and indicate if changes were made to the original content. Use of the emblem, name and logo of the ILO is not permitted in connection with translations, adaptations or other derivative works. Attribution – The user must indicate if changes were made and must cite the work as follows: Naidoo, M., Baffi, S., Aridhi, N. Developing effective digital case management systems for labour dispute prevention and resolution institutions: Lessons learned from the ILO 2025 South-South and Triangular Cooperation workshop on digital case management systems. ILO Working Paper 142.

Geneva: International Labour Office, 2025.© ILO.

Translations – In case of a translation of this work, the following disclaimer must be added along with the attribution: This is a translation of a copyrighted work of the International Labour Organization (ILO). This translation has not been prepared, reviewed or endorsed by the ILO and should not be considered an official ILO translation. The ILO disclaims all responsibility for its content and accuracy. Responsibility rests solely with the author(s) of the translation. Adaptations – In case of an adaptation of this work, the following disclaimer must be added along with the attribution: This is an adaptation of a copyrighted work of the International Labour Organization (ILO). This adaptation has not been prepared, reviewed or endorsed by the ILO and should

Adaptations – In case of an adaptation of this work, the following disclaimer must be added along with the attribution: This is an adaptation of a copyrighted work of the International Labour Organization (ILO). This adaptation has not been prepared, reviewed or endorsed by the ILO and should not be considered an official ILO adaptation. The ILO disclaims all responsibility for its content and accuracy. Responsibility rests solely with the author(s) of the adaptation. Third-party materials – This Creative Commons licence does not apply to non-ILO copyright materials included in this publication. If the material is attributed to a third party, the user of such material is solely responsible for clearing the rights with the rights holder and for any claims of infringement. Any dispute arising under this licence that cannot be settled amicably shall be referred to arbitration in accordance with the Arbitration Rules of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL). The parties shall be bound by any arbitration award rendered as a result of such arbitration as the final adjudication of such a dispute. For details on rights and licensing, contact: rights@ilo.org. For details on ILO publications and digital products, visit: www.ilo.org/publns.

ISBN 9789220420805 (print), ISBN 9789220420812 (web PDF), ISBN 9789220422328 (epub), ISBN 9789220422335 (html). ISSN 2708-3438 (print), ISSN 2708-3446 (digital) https://doi.org/10.54394/RUQT8770The designations employed in ILO publications, which are in conformity with United Nations practice, and the presentation of material therein do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the ILO concerning the legal status of any country, area or territory or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. See: www.ilo. org/disclaimer. The opinions and views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, views or policies of the ILO.

or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. See: www.ilo. org/disclaimer. The opinions and views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, views or policies of the ILO. Reference to names of firms and commercial products and processes does not imply their endorsement by the ILO, and any failure to mention a particular firm, commercial product or process is not a sign of disapproval. Information on ILO publications and digital products can be found at: www.ilo.org/researchand-publications ILO Working Papers summarize the results of ILO research in progress, and seek to stimulate discussion of a range of issues related to the world of work. Comments on this ILO Working Paper are welcome and can be sent to labgov@ilo.org.

Authorization for publication: Vera Paquete-Perdigão ILO Working Papers can be found at: www.ilo.org/global/publications/working-papers Suggested citation: Naidoo, M., Baffi, S., Aridhi, N. 2025. Developing effective digital case management systems for labour dispute prevention and resolution institutions: Lessons learned from the ILO 2025 SouthSouth and Triangular Cooperation workshop on digital case management systems, ILO Working Paper 142 (Geneva, ILO). https://doi.org/10.54394/RUQT877001 ILO Working Paper 142

Abstract This working paper presents insights and lessons learned from the ILO's 2025 South-South and Triangular Cooperation (SSTC) workshop on digital case management systems. Convened in Bangkok, the workshop gathered representatives from South Asia, South-East Asia, and Southern Africa to address the persistent challenges of manual, paper-based labour dispute management systems, particularly inefficiencies and barriers to access to justice. Through a comparative analysis of digital case management systems from Australia, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the Philippines, participants explored key design principles, technological options, and change management strategies necessary for successful digitalisation. Emphasis was placed on buildsystems, particularly inefficiencies and barriers to access to justice. Through a comparative analysis of digital case management systems from Australia, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the Philippines, participants explored key design principles, technological options, and change management strategies necessary for successful digitalisation. Emphasis was placed on building user-centred, flexible, secure, and AI-supported systems while ensuring human-centric decision-making and data protection. The workshop concluded with several countries committing to develop digital workflows and establishing regional platforms to support ongoing peer learning and technical collaboration, contributing to enhanced labour dispute resolution effectiveness and access to labour justice. About the authors Mahandra Naidoo is the Labour Relations and Collective Bargaining Specialist in the LABGOV Branch. He is temporarily detached to this post from the Decent Work Team for South Asia, based in Delhi, where he is the Social Dialogue and Labour Administration Specialist. Prior to this, he served as the ILÓs Chief Technical for the Social Dialogue and Industrial Relations Project in Bangladesh. Sylvain Baffi is a lawyer by education. He holds a Masters degree in advanced international legal studies. He currently works in the Social Protection, Governance and Tripartism Department, where he heads the cluster on social dialogue and industrial relations. Nada Aridhi is a Specialist in Labour Administration within the “Labour Administration and Working Conditions” Cluster at the ILO Country Office of Bangladesh. Under this position, she leads a technical team responsible for providing the support to national constituents to upgrade the national industrial relation system and the Access to Labour Justice mechanisms, strengthen the effectiveness and inclusiveness of Social Dialogue Institutions and processes and to develop a National Wage Policy in Bangladesh. Before this position, she was a CTA at the ILOCO of Algiers, responsible for the management of two projects aiming to “Strengthen Social Dialogue, Social Protection and Labour Administration” in Tunisia.02 ILO Working Paper 142 Abstract 01 About the authors 01 Executive Summary 03 X Introduction 04 X 1 A Summary Overview of Trends in Case Management in Participating Counries 06 X 2 Case Management Systems of Resource 12

Abstract 01 About the authors 01 Executive Summary 03 X Introduction 04 X 1 A Summary Overview of Trends in Case Management in Participating Counries 06 X 2 Case Management Systems of Resource 12 2.1 Fair Work Commission (FWC) of Australia 12 2.2 Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA) of South Africa 14 2.3 Department of Labour and Employment (DoLE) of Philippines 17 2.4 Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (ACAS) of the United Kingdom 19 2.5 LIFT – a case management system for the labour inspectorate 22 X 3 Key Considerations in Developing a Digital Case Management System for LDPR Institutions 25 X Conclusion 28 Annex 29 References 30 Acknowledgements 32 Table of contents03 ILO Working Paper 142 Executive Summary The South-South and Triangular Cooperation (SSTC) Workshop on Digital Case Management Systems, held in Bangkok from 25–27 February 2025, convened representatives from South Asia (Bangladesh, India, Nepal and Sri Lanka), South-East Asia (Cambodia, Philippines, Vietnam), and Southern Africa (Lesotho, Namibia and Eswatini) to explore the development of digital case management systems in the context of labour dispute resolution, with a view to advance access to labour justice. The workshop was prompted by a consistent weakness identified across diagnostic assessments conducted by the ILO, namely, the absence of digital systems for case management of labour disputes. The predominance of manual, paper-based systems, particularly in South Asia, resulted in inefficiencies, delays, document loss, and compromised access to justice. With support from the ILO, the workshop provided a platform for participants to learn from countries with advanced systems, including Australia, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the Philippines. Each shared lessons from their own transition journeys, technical approaches, and strategies for building organisational readiness and change management. Participants reviewed the status of their own systems and collaboratively mapped out workflows

countries with advanced systems, including Australia, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the Philippines. Each shared lessons from their own transition journeys, technical approaches, and strategies for building organisational readiness and change management. Participants reviewed the status of their own systems and collaboratively mapped out workflows with the goal of future digitisation. Key themes included ensuring system flexibility, data security, accessibility, effective use of artificial intelligence, and stakeholder engagement. The case studies further highlighted the need for systems to be designed around user needs, supported by strong internal capabilities, and informed by realistic implementation strategies. The workshop concluded with commitments by several countries - such as Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, and India - to refine their workflows and initiate the development of digital systems. The ILO will continue to support this effort through sub-regional and regional platforms, facilitating peer learning and ongoing technical assistance.04 ILO Working Paper 142 X Introduction The ILO’s diagnostic tool for self-assessing the effectiveness of labour dispute prevention and resolution (LDPR) institutions was developed to help governments and social partners develop a common understanding of the performance of both judicial and non-judicial LDPR institutions, with a view to identifying potential opportunities and challenges, and jointly devise measures to address them. The tool uses thirteen “effectiveness principles” as assessment criteria.1 The diagnostic tool has been used to assess mainly non-judicial labour dispute resolution systems in Bangladesh, three states in India (Tamil Nadu, Telangana, Karnataka), Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Eswatini, Lesotho and Namibia. Arising from these diagnostic assessments, a consistent area of weakness that was identified was the lack of efficient case management systems particularly in South Asia. The case management systems of each of the labour departments and institutions that were assessed in South Asia are all paper-based, which aggravated the risk of documents being lost, inaccuracies of reports generated, and delays in resolving disputes. Effective access to justice was therefore compromised. Developing and strengthening digital case management systems was identified to enhance the effectiveness of LDPR institutions and improve workflow performance. Where digital case management systems were being used in participating countries from Southern

erated, and delays in resolving disputes. Effective access to justice was therefore compromised. Developing and strengthening digital case management systems was identified to enhance the effectiveness of LDPR institutions and improve workflow performance. Where digital case management systems were being used in participating countries from Southern Africa, these countries each relied on South Africás Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration to provide case management services to them. They were however considering developing their own digital case management systems. Each of the action plans arising from the diagnostic workshops has therefore prioritised the development of digital case management systems, as a basis for more effectively receiving, referring, monitoring, resolving and gathering data on labour disputes. A South-South and Triangular Participation workshop was therefore convened by the ILO in Bangkok from 25 – 27 February 2025. The workshop included government participation from countries in South Asia (i.e. Bangladesh, India, Nepal, Sri Lanka), South-East Asia (i.e. Cambodia, Philippines, Vietnam) and Southern Africa (Lesotho, Namibia, Eswatini). A list of participants is attached as Annex 12. The specific purpose of this workshop was to develop a deeper and more informed understanding of what a digital case management system was, what the development of such a system would entail, the benefits of such a system, potential challenges, lessons learnt from specific countries that had developed such systems and identifying next steps towards developing such systems in countries that participated in the workshop. 1 10 Principles apply to both judicial and non-judicial institutions, namely: efficiency, speediness, accessibility, fairness, equality, accountability, independence, impartiality, professionalism and enforcement. In addition, 3 principles also apply to non-judicial institutions, namely: voluntarism, confidentiality and prevention. In relation to case-management systems, the application of the tool in various countries of the world has shown that issues related to case management in both judicial and non-judicial institutions were almost systematically reported. In relation to digital case management, the issues raised concerned their technical and financial sustainability, while with

voluntarism, confidentiality and prevention. In relation to case-management systems, the application of the tool in various countries of the world has shown that issues related to case management in both judicial and non-judicial institutions were almost systematically reported. In relation to digital case management, the issues raised concerned their technical and financial sustainability, while with regard to manual case management, the challenges included the accessibility of files to lawyers and judges, the security of data and the risk of fraudulent interferences, as well as instances of files being lost (Access to Labour Justice for All: Prevention and resolution of labour disputes, Background Report, para. 85 (d)). 2 https://www.ilo.org/sites/default/files/2025-04/Annex%201_Participant%20List_0.pdf05 ILO Working Paper 142 The workshop incorporated specialised case management expertise from the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA) in South Africa, Fair Work Commission (FWC) in Australia and the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (ACAS) of the United Kingdom and the ILÓs LABGOV Branch.06 ILO Working Paper 142 X 1 A Summary Overview of Trends in Case Management in Participating Counries

This section provides a summary overview of key trends in respect of case management systems in countries that participated in the workshop. Presentations submitted by various countries, attached at Annex 23, provide further details. i) Types of non-judicial dispute resolution mechanisms The majority of participants (55 per cent) indicated that non-judicial labour dispute resolution in their countries was through the relevant labour ministry/department. A smaller proportion of participants (35 per cent) identified responsibility for labour dispute resolution as residing with an autonomous labour dispute resolution agency, such as the Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration Commission of Eswatini. A smaller proportion of participants identified tripartite social dialogue institutions or other bodies involving tripartite representation providing dispute resolution services. This was particularly relevant to judicial labour dispute resolution, with, for example, labour courts in Bangladesh comprised of representatives of the tripartite constituencies.

A smaller proportion of participants identified tripartite social dialogue institutions or other bodies involving tripartite representation providing dispute resolution services. This was particularly relevant to judicial labour dispute resolution, with, for example, labour courts in Bangladesh comprised of representatives of the tripartite constituencies. 3 https://www.ilo.org/sites/default/files/2025-04/Annex%202%20Bangkok%20CSM%20Workshop_0.pdf07 ILO Working Paper 142 ii) Frequency in the use of manual case management systems As was expected, the vast majority (45 per cent) of labour dispute resolution institutions in participating countries used manual case management systems. This was especially prevalent amongst participating South Asian countries. Participants mentioned the serious risks that were inherent in using manual case management systems, including lack of storage space, delays in locating files, files being lost, as well as loss of files due to fires. The leaking of confidential information was also identified as a risk, particularly in respect of paper-based case management systems, arising from the lack of security of case files. In a more limited number of cases (28 per cent), digital case management systems were being used. In this regard, for example Lesotho, Namibia and Eswatini, used the digital case management system of South Africás Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA), through a contractual agreement with CCMA. However, Namibia maintained a paper-based case management system, particularly due to risk associated with electricity outages. This was however regarded as cumbersome and inefficient. The Government of India had also developed the Samadhan Portal, under the central Ministry of Labour and Employment, for the lodging of labour disputes. This digital system facilitates the online lodging of disputes by workers and management. The state governments in India were however not integrated into this system, and did not have their own digital case management systems.08 ILO Working Paper 142 iii) Delays in meeting deadlines The majority of participating countries experienced delays in resolving labour disputes. Effective access to justice was therefore severely compromised. The main reasons provided by

however not integrated into this system, and did not have their own digital case management systems.08 ILO Working Paper 142 iii) Delays in meeting deadlines The majority of participating countries experienced delays in resolving labour disputes. Effective access to justice was therefore severely compromised. The main reasons provided by participants for these delays included the lack of efficient case management systems, inadequate staffing, lack of trained conciliators and arbitrators and inadequate budgets for labour administrations and independent LDPR agencies. For Bangladesh, a standard operating procedure on conciliation had been developed, that included timeframes to conciliate disputes. However, a key challenge to meeting deadlines was the shortage of budget for the labour dispute resolution system, relative to the size of its workforce. In addition, parties (identified as predominantly employers) tended not to attend scheduled conciliation proceedings without prior notice, which added to delays. In Namibia, for example, legislation required that awards were to be made within 30 days of lodgement of the dispute. However, due to staff shortages and the volume of cases being received, staff were unable to meet this deadline. This resulted in delays of up to, a year, and sometimes more.09 ILO Working Paper 142 iv) Regularity of review of labour dispute resolution processes and procedures to ensure efficiency The majority of participating institutions (54 per cent) indicated that they sometimes reviewed their policies and procedures to enhance effectiveness. Approximately 43 per cent of participants however indicated that their respective institutions did review labour dispute resolution policies and procedures relatively frequently. For organisations undertaking such reviews, it was however not apparent how inclusive these reviews were. It however appeared that they did not include social partners, and were generally not incorporated into formal government-mandated procedures. It was more likely that the reviews largely took the form of informal discussions, that did not necessarily result in improvements in policy, processes or procedures.10 ILO Working Paper 142 v) Application of internal monitoring mechanisms to control and ensure compliance with deadlines The majority of participants (over 40 per cent) indicated that their labour dispute resolution

reviews largely took the form of informal discussions, that did not necessarily result in improvements in policy, processes or procedures.10 ILO Working Paper 142 v) Application of internal monitoring mechanisms to control and ensure compliance with deadlines The majority of participants (over 40 per cent) indicated that their labour dispute resolution mechanisms included internal monitoring mechanisms to ensure compliance with deadlines. However, upon further exploration, it became apparent that standardised practices were largely absent. In many cases, standard operating procedures had not been developed or documented. In addition, the need for standard operating procedures to deal with different categories of disputes was identified as being urgent. Countries with standardised procedures to address and monitor cases included South Africa and Malaysia. For South Africa, it was a legislative requirement that a matter should be conciliated within 30 days. In the event of failure to conciliate, then a 90-day period was prescribed for arbitration, and 14 days post-arbitration to finalise the award/judgment. This was regardless of the category of dispute. These deadlines provided the basis for monitoring the performance of the CCMA by the government and Parliament. This standardisation also provides users with clarity on the labour dispute resolution process, and their expectations of the CCMA. For Malaysia, a similar situation existed with legislatively prescribed timeframes for the labour dispute resolution process. Each section of government responsible for labour is required to follow the timeframes set out in law. India did not set timelines for the resolution of disputes. Rather, it was left to the discretion of the conciliator to decide how long the conciliation process should take.11 ILO Working Paper 142 vi) Key weaknesses of labour dispute resolution systems In addition to the issues identified above, participants identified the lack of digital case management systems and suitably trained staff in the required numbers, as key impediments to effective labour dispute resolution in their respective countries. Other major challenges that were identified included labour inspectors also undertaking labour dispute resolution, inadequate user literacy in respect of digital technology, corruption, lack of

ment systems and suitably trained staff in the required numbers, as key impediments to effective labour dispute resolution in their respective countries. Other major challenges that were identified included labour inspectors also undertaking labour dispute resolution, inadequate user literacy in respect of digital technology, corruption, lack of impartiality in conciliating disputes, frequent disruptions in internet access associated with electricity outages and internet bandwidth limitations and consequently low user confidence in labour dispute resolution systems. In some countries, political interference in the labour dispute resolution process was a common practice. A country example that was provided involved the labour minister, who had no legislated role in the labour dispute resolution role, intervening in the labour dispute resolution process for the benefit of one or the other party. This is despite superior court rulings that this practice was not permissible. In most participating countries, labour dispute resolution procedures for new forms of work were largely absent. This included countries with large and growing platform economies, where grievance handling and labour dispute resolution processes had yet to be developed. Participants identified this as a priority area for further action. The process of lodging disputes was also complex in some participating countries, which impacted on the accessibility of labour dispute resolution services. In this regard, in certain participating countries, the worker is currently required to lodge a dispute in terms of the specific legislation that would be applicable to their specific dispute. In a context of fragmented labour laws, this increased the complexity of lodging a dispute, with the worker being required to have knowledge of a plethora of labours laws. The lodging of labour disputes, in many instances, also required the completion of various forms, which further compromised the accessibility of labour dispute resolution systems, especially in contexts where lower rates of literacy existed. This often resulted in workers having to seek legal assistance to complete the necessary documentation, resulting in added costs and reducing the affordability of labour dispute resolution services. The confidentiality of conciliation proceedings was also raised as a concern. Apart from the lack of appropriate facilities where conciliation could be confidentially conducted, some participating countries also did not have legal provisions in place to protect the confidentiality of information

the affordability of labour dispute resolution services. The confidentiality of conciliation proceedings was also raised as a concern. Apart from the lack of appropriate facilities where conciliation could be confidentially conducted, some participating countries also did not have legal provisions in place to protect the confidentiality of information exchanged in the conciliation process. This information could consequently then freely be used in the adjudication process.12 ILO Working Paper 142 X 2 Case Management Systems of Resource

This section provides a summary of the experiences of the four countries that served as resource organisations at the workshop, as well as the ILO, in developing digital case management systems. The presentations of these countries are attached under Annex 3. 2.1 Fair Work Commission (FWC) of Australia The role of the FWC was primarily focused on dealing with individual and collective disputes, protecting rights of entry for union officials, regulating registered organisations and unions, setting minimum wages and supporting collective bargaining processes. The Fair Work Ombudsman was a separate independent agency that the FWC liaised with. The Fair Work Ombudsman was responsible for enforcing compliance with relevant legislation and award, registered agreements through inspections, and conducting investigations, amongst other responsibilities. The FWC referred some cases to the federal court, mainly on matters such as general protections and individual rights-based disputes that were discriminatory in nature, amongst other matters. In terms of staff capacity, the organisation was headed by a president and a general manager. There were 53 Commission members4, who carried out the FWCs dispute resolution work. The FWC endeavoured to address matters efficiently, fairly and transparently, while avoiding unnecessary technicalities. Technology, and particularly the digital case management system, was used as a basis for achieving these goals. Approximately 40,000 lodgements a year were received through the case management system. These were submitted either through the FWC website portal, via email (30 - 40 per cent) or dropoff at any of the eight FWC offices. Scheduling to consider a matter is done manually. Once a

Approximately 40,000 lodgements a year were received through the case management system. These were submitted either through the FWC website portal, via email (30 - 40 per cent