A Comparative Analysis of Employment Complaint Redress Mechanisms in Iran and England

This study employs a descriptive-analytical method, using library resources and authoritative legal documents to comparatively examine the judicial systems governing administrative and employment disputes in Iran and England. It analyzes the similarities and differences in their legal foundations, institutional structures, and adjudicative procedures. The findings show that Iran’s employment relations system is characterized by legislative fragmentation and structural complexity, resulting in parallel institutions and uncertainty over jurisdiction. Employment disputes are mainly handled by the Court of Administrative Justice, which reviews decisions of public authorities, and the Boards of Recognition and Dispute Resolution established under the Labor Law. By contrast, England has a coherent legal framework in which Employment Tribunals operating under statutes such as the Employment Rights Act and the Equality Act, hear a broad range of claims, including unfair dismissal, breach of contractual rights, and workplace discrimination. These tribunals also employ mechanisms such as mandatory pre-hearing conciliation and preliminary hearings to reduce caseloads and expedite proceedings. The comparison demonstrates that the English system provides greater transparency, efficiency, and accessibility for litigants, whereas the Iranian system faces challenges including the absence of unified legislation, lengthy proceedings, and multiple competent authorities. The study therefore concludes that improving efficiency and justice in Iran’s employment dispute system requires comprehensive structural reforms, the enactment of clear and integrated legislation, and greater use of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms.