Both tend to be largely limited to handling disputes after dismissal, and both continue mediation structures under the shadow of adjudicatory competence. The paper first compares existing differences in British and West German unfair dismissal laws and their modes of implementation. In both legal systems, the three major legally accepted reasons for dismissal are conduct, capability, and redundancy. The major legal remedies in both systems are reinstatement and compensation, with strong emphasis given to reinstatement; compensation is only granted if reinstatement is not possible. The paper next focuses on degrees of judicial process involvement in the British Tribunals and in the West German Labor Courts as an index for substantive as well as procedural differences in their handling of disputes over unfair dismissals. The reasons why litigation rates, plaintiff success, and rates of settlement are higher in German Labor Courts than in the British Conciliation and Industrial Tribunal system are demonstrated. It is suggested that the explanation for such differences between these two judicial systems lies with the nature of dispute handling at the shop level. In Industrial Tribunals, only roughly 25 percent of workers who have been dismissed obtain satisfaction by means of an adjudicated decision, as compared to 50 percent before West German Labor Courts. It is concluded that the meager possibility of obtaining a final decision in Britain seems to constitute a deterrence to involving the Industrial Tribunals in the resolution of labor disputes over dismissals. On the other hand, in West Germany, judicial involvement presents an attractive option, even if a formal claim for job reinstatement is rarely successful. Tabular data and 88 references are provided. (Author abstract modified.)