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

Naidoo, Mahandra; Baffi, Sylvain; Aridhi, Nada Working Paper 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, No. 142 Provided in Cooperation with: International Labour Organization (ILO), Geneva Suggested Citation: Naidoo, Mahandra; Baffi, Sylvain; Aridhi, Nada (2025) : 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, No. 142, ISBN 978-92-2-042081-2, International Labour Organization (ILO), Geneva, https://doi.org/10.54394/RUQT8770 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/324264 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ XDeveloping 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 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: [email protected]. 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/RUQT8770 The 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. 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 [email protected]g. 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/RUQT8770 01 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 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 ILO´s 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 XIntroduction 04 X1 A Summary Overview of Trends in Case Management in Participating Counries 06 X2 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 X3 Key Considerations in Developing a Digital Case Management System for LDPR Institutions 25 XConclusion 28 Annex 29 References 30 Acknowledgements 32 Table of contents 03 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 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 XIntroduction 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 Africa, these countries each relied on South Africa´s 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 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)). 2https://www.ilo.org/sites/default/files/2025-04/Annex%201_Participant%20List_0.pdf 05 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 ILO´s LABGOV Branch. 12 ILO Working Paper 142 X2 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 FWC´s 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 lodgement was received, scheduling was conducted by 10 to 15 staff, on a daily basis, and was consequently time-consuming. Automating scheduling has however proven to be complicated given that staff preferred to be in control of their scheduled to allow for greater flexibility in time management. There were also fears of job losses arising from full automation through the case management system. On types of matters being consider, unfair dismissals comprised the largest share of lodgements. General protections were also a large application category. These referred to legal rights and protections provided under the Fair Work Act 2009, which protect workplace rights, ensure freedom of association, provide protection from workplace discrimination and safeguard against adverse action and coercion. These protections were enforced by the FWC and the Fair Work Ombudsman. FWC´s current case clearance rate was close to 100 per cent. A total of 82 per cent of lodgements were resolved within eight weeks, which was significantly above the benchmark which was set at 50 per cent. Over 124, 000 calls were received on the helpline, with an average call wait time 4Members are FWC staff who are responsible for conciliating disputes 13 ILO Working Paper 142 of about five minutes. These efficiencies could be attributed to the support provided by an effective case management system. The organisation used an off-the-shelf case management system called caseHQ (Readycase). Data and information were hosted on Azure cloud storage. caseHQ operated primarily on a Microsoft platform, and was therefore compatible with other Microsoft technologies that were incorporated into the case management system. Microsoft was selected given that it was a service provider with the required resources and expertise, and given its geographical spread, was also able to provide a rapid and efficient service. In addition, it was important that the selected case management system´s software stack5 could be easily maintained and was fit for purpose for the future. The appointment of a single service provider, that could provide a comprehensive service was therefore prioritised by FWC, hence the appointment of Microsoft. Prior to procuring caseHQ, FWC had attempted to initially build its own case management system. This decision was ultimately reversed, given the high costs that would have been entailed on updating and maintaining such a self-built system. In addition, FWC did not regard the building of case management systems as part of its core business or area of competence. A decision was therefore taken to procure an off-the-shelf system, that could be configured to serve the needs of the organisation. A key lesson learnt in the process of implementing its digital case management system was that the system should include flexibility to accommodate unexpected development in the dispute resolution process. An inflexible workflow-based system would not allow for cases to be easily moved to different parts of the process, if the situation warranted this. It would therefore result in inefficiencies in a process that was meant to be informal. An analogy that was used to describe FWC´s case management system is that it would be similar to a road network as opposed to a rail network. Whereas a rail network simply went from point A to point B, the road network offered the flexibly to accommodate situations where parties chose to “detour or loop back”. This was similar to what sometimes happened in the conciliation process. A case management system that incorporated this flexibility was therefore important in order to facilitate a flexible and effective dispute resolution process. A further important learning was the importance of change management in order to build staff support and reduce resistance. FWC´s new case management system entailed significant changes in the way in which work was done. Significant efforts were made to involve staff. However, given the impact of the new system on existing work processes, it was found that more could have been done to ensure that staff were more fully involved in the implementation of the new case management system. In this regard, a more phased approach, that incorporated a pilot initially with particular case types would probably have assisted to better incorporate staff, and to resolve some of the challenges with the system earlier in the process. Instead, the system was installed and activated very rapidly. Even with training, some staff found it difficult to transition into using the new system. It was therefore also important to identify and involve “champions” for system implementation from within the teams, who could support and facilitate adoption of the new technology by their colleagues. 5A software stack is a collection of technologies (software components, tools, and frameworks) that are used together to build and run applications. These components are typically layered on top of each other, with each layer serving a specific purpose in the overall system. This includes aspects such as the Front-end (client-facing),back-end (server-side),database to store and manage data, server/hosting environment, and operating system 14 ILO Working Paper 142 Efficient technical support for the case management system was also vital. In this regard, the FWC case management system support team provides support to about 410 licenced users across every state and territory in Australia. These were all internal users, and included conciliators. The support team was responsible for managing configuration and change requests, providing training to new users and coordinating releases and testing. In developing a case management system, a further consideration was to consider future requirements, and to therefore select or develop a system that would allow for adaptation over time, as needs changed. Aspects to consider therefore included the format of data collection, management of information, storage of documents, and relatedly ownership of information. For FWC, it was a requirement that all data was stored in Australia. The FWC case management system was also developed to incorporate a document search feature that assisted to locate precedents. It also incorporated standard templates that could be used by members. However, the system would not generate an order for a member based on keywords. Members were however required to independently reach and document their respective decisions. 2.2 Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA) of South Africa The CCMA was South Africa´s national labour dispute resolution organisation. It was an independent body, funded by the government, through the Department of Labour and Employment, and was governed by a tripartite Board comprising three representatives each from of government, employers and trade unions respectively. The key responsibility of the CCMA was to ensure that labour peace was maintained in South Africa, primarily through conciliating and arbitrating labour disputes, including those of national importance. In respect of the latter, the CCMA was expected to intervene proactively to resolve national strikes, without needing to await government approval to intervene. The organisation also played a key role in supporting the formation of sectoral Bargaining Councils in South Africa. These Bargaining Councils were responsible for collective bargaining for the sector that they cover, and for resolving disputes in these sectors with the support of the CCMA´s conciliators and arbitrators. Parties had recourse to South Africa´s labour courts in the event that they did not accept the outcomes of the CCMA arbitration process. A priority of the CCMA was to ensure improved internal staff and external user accessibility to its labour dispute resolution system. For CCMA, the incorporation of platforms such as WhatsApp into its digital case management system therefore provided a basis for enhancing accessibility to external users in particular. This was important given that many workers, including domestic workers and agricultural workers, lacked internet and email coverage. A further constraint that WhatsApp could assist to overcome was the lack of an efficient postal service in South Africa. Given this situation, CCMA could not rely on the postal service to issue notices, including awards. WhatsApp had therefore provided an alternative approach for the CCMA to communicate, reach and serve notices as well as awards. This was aided by the fact that most South Africans owned smartphones. The CCMA had also developed an app called CCMA Connect that allowed users to track and trace disputes and raise disputes. Essentially, CCMA Connect was designed to make it easier for users to access CCMA services, manage their cases, and receive updates in a more efficient and user-friendly way. 15 ILO Working Paper 142 Key features of CCMA Connect included digital case access by users (employees, employers, and representatives) to access information about their cases online, online document submission; reducing the need to visit CCMA offices, notifications and alerts via SMS and/or email notifications about case developments, such as hearing details or requests for additional information, a self-service portal through which users could interact directly with the CCMA without needing a third party, which was designed to improve access, especially for unrepresented individuals. The main benefits of CCMA Connect was that it improved accessibility, especially for people in remote areas, it facilitated faster communication between the CCMA and case parties, it reduced paperwork and in-person visits and it promoted more transparency and visibility of case progress for all parties. CCMA also implemented its e-Commissioner online case management system in 2023. e-Commissioner was a digital case management tool that assisted Commissioners6 in managing and processing cases electronically. It was based on a Microsoft SharePoint platform and used Microsoft Azure for cloud storage. The E-Commissioner case management system enabled commissioners to access case files, review documentation, and record outcomes electronically; streamlined pre-hearing preparation, in-hearing management, and post-hearing recording of decisions; enabled commissioners to draft and submit arbitration awards or rulings directly within the platform, and supported quicker turnaround times for issuing decisions. It was fully integrated with CCMA Connect and other internal CCMA systems. The e-Commissioner system also enabled commissioners to perform duties from anywhere, supporting remote or virtual hearings (which was especially important during and after the COVID-19 pandemic). This included the online presentation of evidence, the recording of the process and the rendering of binding settlements, rulings and awards. The e-Commissioner case management system aimed to address particular deficiencies in the CCMA´s previous case management system through: i) Transitioning to a paperless dispute resolution process. This would also result in significant cost savings due to a substantial reduction in printing costs. Printing costs were currently extremely high. The reliance on paper copies required archiving, which also added to further costs that be better spent on enhancing labour dispute resolution resources. ii) Making best use of the available commissioners, particularly given that the previous case management system required that a case be heard in the geographical area in which it had been lodged. This had resulted in case load imbalances, with very high caseloads for commissioners in particular areas, and an underutilisation of Commissioners in other geographical areas. Therefore, to address this geographical unevenness, it was necessary to develop a system that would enable Commissioners to hear cases regardless of where they were based, and also without needing to incur additional travel costs for both Commissioners and interpreters. This was important to address fruitless and costly travel and accommodation by Commissioners if one party was absent from proceedings without prior notice. E-Commissioner also enabled users to participate online in dispute resolution processes at a CCMA centre, closest to their location. The e-Commissioner system, given that it was fully online, now enabled a case to be heard virtually, by Commissioners based in any part of the country. The removal of the need for physical presence therefore reshaped the approach to case disposal. 6The officials who conciliate and arbitrate disputes for the CCMA. These include part-time and fulltime staff who undertake these functions. 16 ILO Working Paper 142 iii) The system additionally enabled the case management officers to track deadlines, and to ensure that Commissioners abide by deadlines set in labour legislation. This was important to support the timely addressing of cases, as well as to ensure that CCMA provided an efficient, legislatively complaint service. Regarding case filing, and in addition to the WhatsApp option, cases may be filed online, delivered physically by applicants or submitted via email. Currently, about half of all cases were hand delivered, with approximately 25 per cent being emailed. This was largely due to inadequate Wi-Fi coverage in rural areas. The CCMA therefore intended to expand the use of WhatsApp as part of its strategy to increase accessibility and transition to a paperless environment. Users were therefore encouraged to make use of the CCMA´s WhatsApp platform. Should they not have a smartphone, they could visit a CCMA office to submit their applications via tablets that were available in these offices. This also reduced the burden on case management officers to capture referrals submitted via email or by hand delivery. To reduce its caseloads, the CCMA also conducted pre-conciliation. Pre-conciliation was conducted telephonically by case management officers. This was a cost-effective way in which to resolve cases. Approximately 16 to 20 per cent of cases were addressed through pre-conciliation. Reducing the administrative burden on case management officers would therefore free up more time for them to undertake pre-conciliation, as well as to provide interpretation services. The CCMA was currently working to further consolidate its case management system. This would entail upgrading the e-Commissioner system to enhance the receipt of disputes, schedule commissioners online, track progress (including the status of compliance with awards), monitor and report more efficiently on the status of cases. It would also include the integration of artificial intelligence (AI). Regarding the use of AI, all arbitration procedures were recorded and transcribed. Given the number of arbitrations underway at any given time, as well as the length of some arbitration proceedings, AI would be more fully deployed to support the development of transcripts, and to provide summarised versions of transcripts. AI was also being used for language translations, and this feature was expected to be used more extensively in the future. AI would also incorporated to assist commissioners to find case law to inform their work. This was also intended to expedite the labour dispute resolution process, as the use of AI to find relevant case law would reduce the time spent by commissioners on the same activity. In addition, the use of AI would free up time currently consumed by administrative tasks, for more productive labour dispute resolution activities. This was of particular relevance to case management officers, who required a degree in law or human resources for appointment, and whose time was largely occupied by capturing data, as opposed to pre-conciliation. It was however a priority that the integration of AI into the case management system should ensure that the process remained human-centered. It was also important to recognise that a digital case management system not only contributed to the increased efficiency and effectiveness of the dispute resolution process, and better use of staff time, but also would also facilitate cost-reductions in respect of printing and archiving. In addition, through integrating the digital case management features with Microsoft applications such as Teams, it would no longer be necessary for conciliators to travel to attend labour court proceedings. They could join remotely from their base. It should be noted that, given frequent power outages in South Africa, video calls on WhatsApp had been used to hear cases. This was found to have worked well. 17 ILO Working Paper 142 2.3 Department of Labour and Employment (DoLE) of Philippines Handling labour disputes efficiently was not just about resolving cases. It was also about ensuring workers and employers had access to a fair, transparent and responsive system. The Government of Philippines therefore recognised the need to develop a more integrated, data driven digital case management system. This case management system was designed to streamline processes, improve coordination and provide real time insights for better decision making. By way of context, over the past five years, the labour department handled an average of 49,113 requests for conciliation/mediation. The majority of these cases were settled within the mandatory 30-day period. Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, DoLE predominantly handled cases manually, including through walk-in paper-based systems. However, during the COVID-19 lockdown, and as health restrictions limited face-to-face services, a need to establish online systems to facilitate services or access to workers for dispute resolution services was recognised. In addition, the need for an integrated case management system was also driven by fragmented dispute resolution systems, with multiple agencies operating with their own databases and processes, making data sharing and inter-operability very difficult. Given this fragmentation, real-time monitoring was also extremely difficult. The collection of statistical data, as well as the generating of performance reports was an additional complication. Without timely data, it was difficult to pinpoint bottlenecks, backlogs or dispute patterns. The fact that the dispute resolution processes were largely manual, and paper-based, made them time consuming and prone to duplication or errors that were very difficult to detect. Accessibility and transparency concerns also arose, given difficulties in keep stakeholders updated on the status of their conciliation applications. The development and implementation of a fully integrated case management system was therefore identified as a priority in the Philippines Labor and Employment Plan: 2023 – 2028. Such a system was recognised as critical for cost effective, transparent, accessible and rapid labour dispute resolution. It also fell within the overall policy priorities of the labour department, which emphasised firstly ensuring that policy decisions and operational actions were underpinned by reliable real time information, secondly protecting sensitive case data and personal information across systems, thirdly ensuring continuous training and upskilling staff to embrace digital tools and analytics; and lastly guaranteeing that processes were optimized for the stakeholders that the department served through maintaining high standards of accessibility and efficiency. This case management system therefore comprised a key component of what was viewed as a holistic transformation; focusing on people, process and technology. These were regarding as representing three critical elements that must work together harmoniously for effective service delivery to users. Within this framework, the integrated case management system itself rested on these three overarching objective, given that it aimed firstly to streamline and improve labour dispute resolution processes, secondly to integrate all labour dispute resolution databases into one seamless system and lastly to provide real time data and status updates to enhance monitoring and better inform policy decisions. These objectives unfolded in the following three phases. Phase one focused on the launching of a pilot integrated case management system. Phase 2 involved creating a data warehouse and expanding the pilot case management system dashboard to encompass real-timing reporting capabilities. 18 ILO Working Paper 142 Phase three entailed the development of a fully comprehensive integrated case management system connected with additional offices of the Department of Labour and Employment and other related organisations, including the Bureau of Labor Relations. This would ensure an end-toend digital ecosystem for labour dispute resolution. The Bureau of Labor Relations formed part of the Department of Labor and Employment, and was responsible for collecting and regularly publishing data on labour relations. By the end of phase three, a comprehensive labour dispute resolution ecosystem was envisaged in which each labour dispute process was included, monitored and resolved within a unified digital platform. An important consideration in developing the digital case management system was the need to enhance accessibility of the labour dispute resolution system. Philippines had between 10 to 15 major languages in which labour disputes were receive. The integration of large language models (LLMs), that could incorporate multiple languages, with the digital case management system was therefore critical. A number of LLMs were trained and could handle multiple languages. They could identify the nature of the dispute, and to whom these disputes should be referred. Therefore, in respect of the digital case management system, once a complaint was received, the system would determine whether it was a Single-Entry Approach (SENA)7 or a non-SENA item. If it was a SENA item, then the administrative process was straightforward. In this case, the complainant would receive an email response guiding them to guide them on the next steps in the formal lodging of the complaint. Dealing with non-SENA issues depended on whether or not the dispute could be referred to other agencies of DoLE. Once this was determined, the LLM was trained to guide the complainant on the next steps. It would also automatically alert the relevant agency about the dispute, and provide information that was applicable to the dispute. Therefore, for example, for a wage dispute, the system would forward an email to the focal point at the labour inspectorate or wages board, and would generate a summary of the complaint, and the appropriate law in reference to the complaint. The labour inspectorate/wage board focal point would therefore be provided with a rapid overview of the complaint and relevant law as a basis for further action. The need for human-centred follow-up and action was emphasised. This was also pertinent to DoLE. There were complaints of a sensitive nature that the manager for a particular jurisdiction would want to specifically assign to more seasoned mediators. The automated assignment of disputes to conciliators was therefore removed from the system to retain decision-making by managers. In addition, the end-toend management of the case through AI was also restricted. This ensured that the conciliators would continue to have primary responsibility for liaising with complainants. The lessons learnt from the Philippines experience of developing and implementing a digital case management system included firstly the importance of undertaking implementation in a phased approach. Incremental rollouts would allow for the refining of each stage without overwhelming stakeholders, particularly given the scale of the transformation. Secondly, if the project involved integrating new systems with existing systems, it was important to strengthen data warehousing and real time analytics. Timely insights improved strategic decisions. Thirdly, consideration 7A SENA item is a dispute that is dealt with directly by the Department of Labor and Employment and its National Conciliation and Mediation Board. It is an administrative mechanism designed to provide speedy, impartial, and inexpensive access to labour dispute resolution before they escalate into full-blown cases or formal complaints. It aims to mediate disputes between workers and employers through conciliation and mediation within 30 calendar days from the date of filing. 19 ILO Working Paper 142 should be given to incorporating AI-assisted automation and assessment to provide guidance on how processes could be streamlined and case handling efficiency could be enhanced. Fourth, security and data privacy should be embedded in the system. Compliance with data protection regulations was vital, especially given the sensitive nature of information. Fifth, investment in training and change management was crucial. Involving staff and stakeholders in the transformation would facilitate smoother implementation. Linked with this, fostering transparency and trust through regular and communication and feedback with stakeholders was needed. Finally, securing funding was vital. This required close partnerships between government and development partners. 2.4 Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (ACAS) of the United Kingdom ACAS was an independent, tripartite labour dispute resolution body, funded by government. It however functioned independently of government. Its services included a substantial training function, web-based services, conciliation of both individual and collective disputes, and arbitration. Arbitration represented a smaller component of the work of ACAS. In this regard, approximately 20 arbitrations were conducted per year, compared with in excess of100,000 individual dispute claims that were mainly addressed through conciliation. The key role of ACAS was the prevention and resolution of disputes. On prevention, ACAS had a helpline through which anyone with a question on their labour rights could receive assistance. This included both employers and employees. The aim of the helpline was to assist parties with information that could potentially avert a dispute. For employees, the information was provided in manner that would enable the employee to have an informed discussion with her/his manager, thereby offering the possibility to avoid a legal dispute. Similarly, for employers, expert legal advice was provided with a view to avoiding disputes from arising. Dispute resolution was a shared function in the United Kingdom. In this regard, the Employment Tribunal conducted the adjudication of disputes, while ACAS was primarily responsible for conciliating disputes. ACAS and the Employment Tribunal were however separated by law. ACAS was therefore prohibited form allowing the Employment Tribunal access to its system, and vice versa. There were efforts underway to bridge this divide. Arising from legislation, the dispute resolution process was structured into a series of phases which had to be conducted over a specific period. Each phase had its own procedure through which to deal with parties. Any claimant wishing to proceed with a dispute in the United Kingdom was required by law to notify ACAS, to obtain a certificate that the matter had been submitted to ACAS. This included a claimant wishing to lodge a case with the Employment Tribunal. An ACAS certificate was necessary in order to proceed. As a first step, the information that was required by ACAS, through a structured form, included their name, address and the address of their employer. Once this information had been obtained, the case then proceeded to early conciliation. In this phase, ACAS had six weeks during which to attempt to resolve the claim. At the end of that period, and if the claim was unresolved, the parties could proceed to the Employment Tribunal for adjudication. This phase experienced backlogs of about a year before the case proceeded to a hearing. During this period, ACAS was again triggered to restart the conciliation process. 20 ILO Working Paper 142 ACAS was experiencing an approximately 11 per cent year-on-year increase in the number of cases that it was required to address. It had therefore become imperative to develop a case management that could support the dispute resolution process. When ACAS commenced development of its digital case management system, it had limited technical capability in developing new systems. It had therefore built this capability over time. This had however resulted in the establishment of an internally trained information technology team with a strong understanding of the work of ACAS and the users of ACAS services. It has also resulted in a reduced need for external contractors. The styling of the ACAS website, and the form to lodge a dispute, were modelled on the gov. uk website, which was a highly acclaimed website. The form to lodge a dispute was completed and submitted online. Once submitted, it could no longer be accessed. Once ACAS received the form, it contacted the employer to inform them of the claim. This assisted to gauge, prior to the commencement of the conciliation process, whether or not the employer was willing to enter into a conciliation process. This was important to more effectively manage the deployment of conciliators, who could spend substantial time with the claimant only to subsequently discover that the employer was not willing to participate. The prior contacting of of the employer therefore facilitated a more efficient delivery of ACAS services. With regard to employers, ACAS had a “large employer” list. This list included banks, supermarket chains, and the civil service amongst other. Large employers had designated focal point that ACAS could directly contact. This assisted also to expedite the labour dispute resolution process. It was also important to ensure that the language used in the dispute lodgement form was very clear and unambiguous. In this regard, for example, a question in the form had provided “solicitor” as an option in respect of representation at conciliation proceedings. This created confusion given that claimants were using other types of legal representatives who were not specifically solicitors. “Solicitor” was therefore replaced with “legal representative”. This type of iteration and user testing was therefore essential to ensure continuous improvements in service offerings. In this regard, user testing had significantly contributed to enhancing the efficiency of ACAS´s case management system and dispute resolution services. A further example to illustrate the importance of user testing related to an earlier dispute lodgement form used by ACAS. This form had required claimants to provide very basic details of their compliant. Each claimant would then then meet with a case preparation team who would capture the remaining information. This was found to have been wasteful and unproductive. The notification form was therefore revised to include sufficient information as a basis for the conciliator to immediately commence work. The case preparation team therefore now required only 12 people, from the original 35. This has freed up the remaining 23 staff to pursue other activities in ACAS, further facilitating the better use of staff resources and enhancing the efficiency of ACAS services. ACAS, when developing its digital case management system, had similarly undertaken significant prior research and development. Based on this research Microsoft Dynamics was secured as the software of choice. Using this platform, a very basic case management system was initially developed as a basis for further testing and development. For testing purposes, a small internal team was assembled into a model office” which six conciliators, staff to do allocations and a manager. This team then worked on live cases and provided feedback as they progressed. Through that feedback, ACAS worked to expand its system capability and develop it more properly. Staff were then trained, and the system was deployed across the organisation. The use of 21 ILO Working Paper 142 Microsoft Dynamics allowed for the use of Microsoft's continued improvements to the system. Microsoft was now gradually unrolling AI into the system. They were also improving the way in which emails were managed, including in respect of access and storage. There was a regular upgrading of Microsoft Dynamics twice a year, in which ACAS had no role. However, ACAS used these improvements as opportunities to enhance its own services to its clients. Regarding the allocation of cases, ACAS had an automated case allocations process. Once the notification form was received, the system assesses the form. Based on the information that was provided, it was determined whether or not the claimant sought conciliation. If this was not requested, then in most case, the case was closed on the ACAS side. If conciliation was requested, but if some information was lacking, then the claimant was contacted via email to obtain the outstanding information. This also assisted to accurately categorise the case in terms of, for example, what it was about, whether it was submitted in time (i.e. within three months of the incident, etc. Once all the information had been obtained, it was determined if a suitable conciliator was available. This was based on criteria such as the complaint category (e.g. wages owed discrimination, equal pay, unfair dismissal, redundancy, etc), available conciliators, their capability, training that they have received, their grade, and their caseload during the week. The system would then automatically allocate the case. If a suitable conciliator was not available, the case would join a queue. Given the rising number of cases, automated case allocation has been found to be more difficult to implement. Further development was therefore underway to enable the system to better manage a queue. The case management system was also designed to accommodate non-linear processes to allow for greater flexibility in the labour dispute resolution process. For example, if no response had been received from the employer, then the process would remain at an initial stage; or the employer may have declined to participate, in which case the system would move to the very end of the process without any discussions having being held. An ACAS certificate would then be issued, allowing the claimant to move the process to the Employment Tribunal. In some cases, the employer might ask to review the complaint before responding to ACAS on whether they wished to engage, or they could choose to engage and open up discussions, or they may even be prepared for the complaint and immediately respond with an offer. The case management system therefore needed to accommodate this range of possibilities, and to skip to the appropriate stage/section. This was also important in instances where it had not been possible to resolve a dispute, and a certificate had been issued to this effect. Parties may however, within a prescribed period, revert to ACAS to again attempt to conciliate the dispute prior to escalating the matter to the Employment Tribunal. ACAS´s case management system was designed to be as user friendly as possible. In this regard, it included functionalities that allowed for the generation of summary notes of discussions, as well as telephone calls with parties. It also provided an option for case summaries to be generated. Conciliators could additionally “pin” emails that they considered to be of particular importance. The system would also generate a complete chronological record of every activity on the case. This included any action, including automated actions, emails that were sent and telephone calls. This provided a comprehensive ecosystem to support the work of the conciliators. They could make their telephone calls, send emails, make notes and trigger the settlement documentation 28 ILO Working Paper 142 XConclusion The workshop provided the representatives of the participating countries with a sound understanding of digital case management systems, and the process of developing and implementing such systems. The resource persons played a key role in building this understanding and addressing any misconceptions that may have existed on the benefits of digital case management systems versus paper-based systems. The workshop also culminated in participating countries mapping their current paper-based dispute resolution workflows, and undertaking an initial mapping of workflows that could be digitised. In addition to developing these initial workflows, this process also contributed to the potential alignment of case management workflows across different departments with responsibility for labour dispute resolution, as well as between central and state level government. In this regard, for example, Bangladesh developed a workflow that more clearly integrated the dispute resolution activities of the Department of Labour and the Department of Inspections for Factories and Enterprises, with that of the Ministry of Labour and Employment. India´s workflow created more explicit links between the central Ministry of Labour and Employment and state-level labour departments. As a next step, through projects in Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and India, the workflows will be mapped and developed further and a process will be initiated by the relevant ILO Country Offices, to develop digital case management systems based on these refined workflows. It is intended that a South Asia platform would be established comprising these three countries, together with Nepal, to share learning and experiences in the development of their respective digital case management systems. Southern Africa was also in the process of establishing a similar platform comprising Namibia, Lesotho and Eswatini, with technical support from the ILO and the CCMA. Information exchange, initially between South Asia and Southern Africa in particular, given the similarity of legislative contexts and activities, will be facilitated by the ILO so as to enhance information exchange and collaboration. This workshop immediately following the ILO Tripartite Technical Meeting on Access to Labour Justice for All: Prevention and resolution of labour disputes | International Labour Organization (17-21 February 2025). The Conclusions adopted by the tripartite meeting emphasised the need for “enhancing efforts to collect data and statistics relevant to LDPR (…); providing support to constituents in this area, including through the better use of digitalized administrative records; undertaking a comprehensive review of available data sources, methods (including legal needs surveys) and possible indicators to measure the effectiveness of access to labour justice; and strengthening its engagement with multilateral partners in relation to existing global indicators on access to justice, such as SDG indicator 16.3.3.” It is expected that the digitalisation of case management systems of LDPR institutions will help in advancing access to labour justice, enhancing institutional performance and contributing to improved data collection on types and subjects of disputes, and trends in these areas as requested by the Tripartite Technical Meeting. 29 ILO Working Paper 142 Annex Annex 1 : https://www.ilo.org/sites/default/files/2025-04/Annex%201_Participant%20List_0.pdf Annex 2 : https://www.ilo.org/sites/default/files/2025-04/Annex%202%20Bangkok%20CSM%20 Workshop_0.pdf Annex 3: https://www.ilo.org/sites/default/files/2025-04/Annex%203%20Bangkok%20CSM%20 Workshop.pdf 30 ILO Working Paper 142 References 1. Presentation of the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service of the United Kingdom, ILO 2025 South-South and Triangular Cooperation workshop on digital case management systems, February 2025 2. Presentation of the Government of Bangladesh on its labour dispute resolution system, Ministry of Labour and Employment, ILO 2025 South-South and Triangular Cooperation workshop on digital case management systems, February 2025 3. Presentation of the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration of South Africa, ILO 2025 South-South and Triangular Cooperation workshop on digital case management systems, February 2025 4. Presentation of the on its labour dispute resolution system the Government of Cambodia, Ministry of Labour and Vocational Training, ILO 2025 South-South and Triangular Cooperation workshop on digital case management systems, February 2025 5. Presentation of the on its labour dispute resolution system the Government of Eswatini, Ministry of Labour and Employment, ILO 2025 South-South and Triangular Cooperation workshop on digital case management systems, February 2025 6. Presentation of the Fair Work Commission of Australia, ILO 2025 South-South and Triangular Cooperation workshop on digital case management systems, February 2025 7. Presentation of the on its labour dispute resolution system the Government of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment, ILO 2025 South-South and Triangular Cooperation workshop on digital case management systems, February 2025 8. Presentation of the on its labour dispute resolution system the Kingdom of Lesotho, Directorate of Dispute Prevention And Resolution, ILO 2025 South-South and Triangular Cooperation workshop on digital case management systems, February 2025 9. Presentation of the Labour Inspection and the Future of Technology System of the ILO, ILO 2025 South-South and Triangular Cooperation workshop on digital case management systems, February 2025 10. Presentation of the on its labour dispute resolution system the Government of Malaysia, Ministry of Human Resources, ILO 2025 South-South and Triangular Cooperation workshop on digital case management systems, February 2025 11. Presentation of the on its labour dispute resolution system the Government of Namibia, Ministry of Labour, Industrial Relations, ILO 2025 South-South and Triangular Cooperation workshop on digital case management systems, February 2025 12. Presentation of the on its labour dispute resolution system the Government of Nepal, Ministry of Labour, Employment and Social Security, ILO 2025 South-South and Triangular Cooperation workshop on digital case management systems, February 2025 13. Presentation of the on its labour dispute resolution system the Government of Philippines, Department of Labor and Employment, ILO 2025 South-South and Triangular Cooperation workshop on digital case management systems, February 2025 14. Presentation of the on its labour dispute resolution system the Government of Sri Lanka, Ministry of Labor and Foreign Employment, ILO 2025 South-South and Triangular Cooperation workshop on digital case management systems, February 2025 31 ILO Working Paper 142 15. Summary record of proceedings, ILO Tripartite Technical Meeting on Access to Labour Justice for All: Prevention and resolution of labour disputes, February 2025 16. Conclusions of the ILO Tripartite Technical Meeting on Access to Labour Justice for All: Prevention and resolution of labour disputes, February 2025 32 ILO Working Paper 142 Acknowledgements This report is the result of a joint effort between the Social Dialogue, Labour Relations and Governance of Work Branch (LABGOV) of the Governance and Tripartism Department (GOVERNANCE), ILO Country Office for Bangladesh and the ILO International Training Centre in Turin (ITC-ILO). The workshop on which this report is based was largely funded by the Labour Administration and Working Conditions Cluster (LAWC) of the Country Office for Bangladesh, with the support of the Country Director, Mr Tuomo Poutiainen; the Programme Manager of the LAWC Cluster, Mr Neeran Ramjuthan and LAWC colleagues and Mr Kadir Albab Chowdhury. Ms Nandini Chowdhury of the LAWC Cluster ensured the effective communication of the workshop. Ms Vera PaquetePerdigao, Director of the GOVERNANCE Department and Ms Lieve Verboven (BRANCH Chief of LABGOV) provided strong support for the convening of the workshop. Workshop discussions were enriched by the participation of Ms Pramo Weerasekera of the ILO Country Office for Sri Lanka and the Maldives, Mr Vaibhav Raaj of the Country Office for India and Mr Saurabh Shah of the Country Office for Nepal. Their participation was made possible with the support of Ms Michiko Miyamoto, Director of the Country Office for India and Decent Work Team for South Asia; Ms Joni Simpson, Director of the Country Office for Sri Lanka and the Maldives and Mr Numan Ozcan, Country Director for Nepal. Mr Geir Tonstol and Ms Rabia Razzaque were key to facilitating Pakistan´s participation. Mr Khalid Hassan, Country Director for Philippines facilitated the participation of the Government of Philippines. Ms Wimon Pumsavai, Operations Assistant in DWT-Bangkok, provided dedicated and tireless support to ensure that highly efficient logistics was provided for the workshop. Technical support at the workshop was provided by Mr Limpho Mandoro, Specialist for Social Dialogue and Labour Administration in the ILO Decent Work Team for Southern Africa and Mr Arun Kumar, Social Dialogue and Collective Bargaining Specialist in the Decent Work Team for South-East Asia. Invaluable specialised technical guidance and support on case management was provided by the workshop resource persons, namely Mr Mr Nkosikhona Nkosi, Chief Information Officer of the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration in South Africa; Mr Daniel Wursthorn, Acting Director - Data and Digital Services of the Fair Work Commission of Australia; Attorney Paul Vincent W. Añover, the Assistant Secretary of the Department of Labour and Employment in Philippines; Ms Rumsha Shahzad, Technical Officer for Compliance and Technology in the LABGOV Branch and Mr Stewart Gee, Head of Individual Dispute Resolution in the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service of the United Kingdom. The active participation of representatives of the participating countries greatly enriched workshop discussions. Ms Valerie van Goethem, Labour Law Specialist in the LABGOV Branch kindly reviewed the report and provided valuable feedback that assisted to enrich it. Ms Delphine Bois´s assistance with the design and publication of the report is also much appreciated. Governance and Tripartism Department (GOVERNANCE) Labour Administration, Labour Inspection and Occupational Safety and Health Branch (LABADMIN/OSH) International Labour Organization Route des Morillons 4 1211 Geneva 22 Switzerland XAdvancing social justice, promoting decent work The International Labour Organization is the United Nations agency for the world of work. We bring together governments, employers and workers to improve the working lives of all people, driving a human-centred approach to the future of work through employment creation, rights at work, social protection and social dialogue. I S B N 9789220420805 9HSTCMA*ecaiaf+ 9 789220 420805 Contact details