劳动者集体行动的法律规制——以正当性判断为核心
|
摘要
集体行动权不是一项"绝对性"权利,其内容、边界及限制应由国内法规范决定。我国劳动者集体行动的法律规制,需要在尊重社会发展阶段和集体劳动关系成熟度的基础上,于"赋权"与"制约"中不断衡量进行制度选择。集体行动法律规制的核心路径是基于对主体、目的、程序以及手段正当性判断的法律免责。主体正当性判断应在"劳动三权"理论框架中保持集体争议权行使主体与集体谈判权主体的一致性;目的正当性判断应在集体谈判维持、改善、提高劳动条件和其他经济条件的目标框架内;程序正当性应履行"和平义务"、遵守"最后手段原则"以及"共同决议原则"与"公平原则";手段正当性应谨守"禁止过度原则",并以消极性和非暴力为手段。
The right to collective action is not an "absolute" right, and its content, boundary and limitation should be determined by the norms of domestic law. The legal regulation of workers'collective action needs to make institutional selection in "empowerment" and "restriction" on the basis of respecting the stage of social development and maturity of collective labor relations. The core path of the legal regulation of collective action is based on the legal exemption of legitimacy judgment of subject, purpose, procedure and means. The judgment of subjectivity legitimacy should keep the consistency between the subject of collective dispute rights and collective bargaining rights in the theoretical framework of "labor three rights"; the judgment of objective legitimacy should be in the framework of the objective of maintaining, improving and increasing the labor and other economic conditions in collective bargaining; the legitimacy of procedure should fulfill the "obligation of peace", observe the "principle of last means", the "principle of joint resolution" and the "principle of fairness"; the legitimacy of the means should adhere to the principle of "prohibition of excess" and take the passive and non-violent means.
The right to collective action is not an "absolute" right, and its content, boundary and limitation should be determined by the norms of domestic law. The legal regulation of workers'collective action needs to make institutional selection in "empowerment" and "restriction" on the basis of respecting the stage of social development and maturity of collective labor relations. The core path of the legal regulation of collective action is based on the legal exemption of legitimacy judgment of subject, purpose, procedure and means. The judgment of subjectivity legitimacy should keep the consistency between the subject of collective dispute rights and collective bargaining rights in the theoretical framework of "labor three rights"; the judgment of objective legitimacy should be in the framework of the objective of maintaining, improving and increasing the labor and other economic conditions in collective bargaining; the legitimacy of procedure should fulfill the "obligation of peace", observe the "principle of last means", the "principle of joint resolution" and the "principle of fairness"; the legitimacy of the means should adhere to the principle of "prohibition of excess" and take the passive and non-violent means.
引文
1.董保华:“劳动者自发罢工的机理及合法限度”,《甘肃社会科学》2012年第1期。
2.王全兴、倪雄飞:“论我国罢工立法与罢工转型的关系”,《现代法学》2012年第4期。
3.常凯:“关于罢工的合法性及其法律规制”,《当代法学》2012年第5期。
4. ILO, Giving Globalization a Human Face, General Survey on the Fundamental Conventions Concerning Rights at Work in Light of the ILO Declaration on Social Justice for a Fair Globalization, 2008, Report III (Part 1B), International Labour Conference, 101st Session, Geneva, 2012.
(1)参见汪建华:“实用主义团结——基于珠三角新工人集体行动案例的分析”,《社会学研究》2013第1期,第18页。
(2)See Aaron N.Lehl,“China’s Trade Union System Under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: Is China in Compliance with Article 8 ”, University of Hawaii Law Review, Vol.21 (1999), pp.233-234.
(3)参见常凯:“关于罢工的合法性及其法律规制”,《当代法学》2012年第5期,第110-112页。
(4)See Bernard Gernigon, Alberto Odero & Horacio Guido,“ILO Principles Concerning the Right to Strike”, International Labour Review, Vol.137, No.4 (1998), pp.7-10.
(5)See Claire La Hovary,“Showdown at the ILO?A Historical Perspective on the Employers’ Group’s 2012 Challenge to the Right to Strike”, Industrial Law Journal, Vol.42, No.4 (2013), p.338.
(6)See Employers’ Statement in the Committee on the Application of Standards of the International Labor Conference on 4 June 2012,http://www.uscib.org/docs/2012_06_04_ioe_clarifications_statement.pdf,visited on Sep.4,2018.
(7)See ILO, Application of International Labour Standards 2015 (1), Report of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations, Report III (Part 1 A), International Labour Conference, 104th Session, Geneva, 2015, para 29, p.11.
(8)See Tripartite Meeting on the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organize Convention, 1948 (No.87), in Relation to the Right to Strike and the Modalities and Practices of Strike Action at National Level, Geneva, 23-25 February 2015, http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/@ed_norm/@relconf/documents/meetingdocument/wcms_346764.pdf,visited on Sep.4,2018.
(9)See Tonia Novitz,“The Restricted Freedom to Strike:‘Far-Reaching’ ILO Jurisprudence on The Public Sector and Essential Services”, Comparative labor law and policy, Vol.38, No.3 (2017), pp.353-354.
(10)See ILO, Giving Globalization a Human Face, General Survey on the Fundamental Conventions Concerning Rights at Work in Light of the ILO Declaration on Social Justice for a Fair Globalization, 2008, Report III (Part 1B), International Labour Conference, 101st Session, Geneva, 2012.
(11)See Mayoung Nham,“The Right to Strike or the Freedom to Strike: Can Either Interpretation Improve Working Conditions in China?”, George Washington International Law Review, Vol.39, No.2 (2007), p.923.
(12)参见田思路、贾秀芬:《日本劳动法研究》,中国社会科学出版社2013年版,第15页。
(13)参见[德]雷蒙德·瓦尔特曼:《德国劳动法》,沈建峰译,法律出版社2014年版,第368页。
(14)See William B.Gould, A Primer on American Labor Law (3d ed), Cambridge: the MIT Press, 1993, p.97.
(15)See note (11),p.926.
(16)参见田思路、孔令明:“权利争议罢工:正当性否定论”,《当代法学》2017年第4期,第111页。
(17)参见王天玉:“劳动者集体行动治理的司法逻辑——基于2008-2014年已公开的308件罢工案件判决”,《法制与社会发展》2015年第2期,第188页。
(18)陈继盛:《劳工法论文集》,台湾地区陈林法学文教基金会1994年版,第388页。
(19)转引自杨通轩:《争议行为合法性之判断基准》,载《劳动法裁判选辑》,元照出版公司1999年版,第188-192页。
(20)[德]沃尔夫冈·多伊普勒:《德国雇员权益的维护》,唐伦亿、谢立斌译,中国工人出版社2009年版,第40页。
(21)参见[德]曼弗雷德·魏斯、马琳·施米特:《德国劳动法与劳资关系》,倪斐译,商务印书馆2012年版,第226-227页。
(22)See Manfred Weiss & Marlene Schmidt, Labour Law and Industrial Relations in Germany (Fourth revised edition), The Netherlands: Kluwer Law International, 2008, p.203.
(23)Kazuo Sugeno, Japanese Employment and Labor Law, translated by Leo Kanowitz, Durham: Carolina Academic Press, 2002, pp.623-624.
(24)Ibid,pp.19-20.
(25)参见注(13),第479-480页。
(26)参见董保华:“劳动者自发罢工的机理及合法限度”,《甘肃社会科学》2012 年第1期,第120页。
(27)参见王全兴、倪雄飞:“论我国罢工立法与罢工转型的关系”,《现代法学》2012年第4期,第189页。
(28)See Jean-Michel Servais,“The Right to Take Industrial Action and The ILO Supervisory Mechanism Future”, Comparative Labor Law and Policy Journal, Vol.38, No.3 (2017), p.375.
(29)Ibid,p.385.
(30)See David Westfall & Gregor Thüsing,“Strikes and Lockouts in Germany and Under Federal Legislation in The United States: A Comparative Analysis”, Boston College International and Comparative Law Review, Vol.22, No.1 (1999), p.41.
(31)参见注(16),第116页。
(32)参见[日]荒木尚志:《日本劳动法》,李坤刚、牛志奎译,北京大学出版社2010年版,第140页。
(33)参见黄程贯:《劳动法》,台湾新学林出版股份有限公司2009年版,第B-21页。
(34)包括“未加入工会而具有相同主张之劳工达十人以上,或受雇于雇佣劳工未满十人之事业单位,其未加入工会之劳工具有相同主张者达三分之二以上者”。
(35)29 U.S.C.A§157.
(36)NLRB v.Washington Aluminum Company, 370 U.S.9 (1962).
(37)参见[美]罗伯特·A·高尔曼:《劳动法基本教程——劳工联合与集体谈判》,马静、王增森、李妍、刘鹏飞译,中国政法大学出版社2003年版,第263页。
(38)See Fred Witney & Benjamin J.Taylor, U.S.Labor Relations Law: Historical Development, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1992, p.223.
(39)参见注(26),第119-121页。
(40)参见段毅、李琪:“中国集体劳动关系的生成、发展与成熟—一个自下而上的分析视角”,《中国人力资源开发》2014年第23期,第97页。
(41)参见陈步雷、陈朝闻:“劳资自治中的劳动者‘自赋权维权模式’——以广州利得鞋业公司集体劳动争议为例”,《中国人力资源开发》2016年第8期,第106页。
(42)See ILO, Collective Bargaining: A Policy Guide, International Labour Office, Governance and Tripartism Department (GOVERNANCE), Conditions of Work and Equality Department (WORKQUALITY), Geneva, 2015, p.30.
(43)See note ⑩,p.97.
(44)参见注(21),第222页。
(45)See note (23),p.625.
(46)See note (30),pp.47-50.
(47)See ILO, Freedom of Association-Digest of Decisions and Principles of the Freedom of Association Committee of the Governing Body of the ILO, Fifth (revised) edition, 2006, para.532, p.111.
(48)See note (30),pp.49-50.
(49)同注③,第116页。
(50)同注(16),第120页。
(51)参见注(26),第119页。
(52)参见李琪:“启动集体谈判的‘潜机制’”,《中国人力资源开发》2011年第2期,第82-85页。
(53)参见丁嘉惠:“德国不当劳动行为之规范”,《劳工之友》1995年第4期,第14页。
(54)参见李柯夫:“复杂的劳资纠纷,可在法律框架内解决”,载《潇湘晨报》2014年3月26日。
(55)参见[2014]常劳人仲字50号。
(56)See note (23),p.628.
(57)First National M Fireboard Paper Products Corp.v.NLRB,375 U.S.963 (1964).
(58)Fireboard Paper Products Corp.v.NLRB,375 U.S.963 (1964).
(59)参见李干:“我国集体劳动争议的难题与反思——基于自发罢工向制度外的‘涌出’现象”,《宁夏社会科学》2017年第1期,第73页。
(60)参见李琪、戴春:“企业并购中的集体劳动争议及其影响”,《中国人力资源开发》2014年第14期,第103页。
(61)参见郑尚元:《劳动合同法的制度与理念》,中国政法大学出版社2008年版,第304-307页。
(62)同注(33),第A-226页。
(63)See note ④,pp.36-37.
(64)参见注(21),第40页。
(65)参见注(32),第140页。
(66)See Robert E.Allen & Timothy J.Keaveny, Contemporary Labor Relations Addison, Boston: Addison Wesley Longman, 1988, p.552.
(67)See NLRB v.Sands Mfg.Co., 306 U.S.332,(1939).
(68)史尚宽:《劳动法原论》,正大印书馆1978年版,第253页。
(69)参见注(13),第493页。
(70)参见注(32),第140页。
(71)参见肖竹:“群体性劳动争议应对中的政府角色”,《行政法学研究》2014年第2期,第82页。
(72)See note (42),p.60.
(73)See note ⑩,para.247.
(74)参见注(19),第189页。
(75)参见注(32),第142-143页。
(76)See Mastro Plastics Corp.v.Labor Board, 350 U.S.270 (1956).
(77)黄越钦:《劳动法新论》,中国政法大学出版社2003年版,第325页。
(78)See note ④,pp.28-29.
(79)参见注(20),第42页。
(80)参见注(19),第91页。
(81)参见注(12),第263页。
(82)See note (23),p.629.
(83)See Fair Work Act 2009-Sect 414,http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/fwa2009114/s414.html,visited on Sep.20,2018.
(84)See ILO, Freedom of Association and Collective Bargaining, Report III (Part 4B), International Labour Conference 81st Session, 1994, Geneva, para.173-174, p.76.
(85)参见注(20),第41页。
(86)See note (23),p.634.
2.王全兴、倪雄飞:“论我国罢工立法与罢工转型的关系”,《现代法学》2012年第4期。
3.常凯:“关于罢工的合法性及其法律规制”,《当代法学》2012年第5期。
4. ILO, Giving Globalization a Human Face, General Survey on the Fundamental Conventions Concerning Rights at Work in Light of the ILO Declaration on Social Justice for a Fair Globalization, 2008, Report III (Part 1B), International Labour Conference, 101st Session, Geneva, 2012.
(1)参见汪建华:“实用主义团结——基于珠三角新工人集体行动案例的分析”,《社会学研究》2013第1期,第18页。
(2)See Aaron N.Lehl,“China’s Trade Union System Under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: Is China in Compliance with Article 8 ”, University of Hawaii Law Review, Vol.21 (1999), pp.233-234.
(3)参见常凯:“关于罢工的合法性及其法律规制”,《当代法学》2012年第5期,第110-112页。
(4)See Bernard Gernigon, Alberto Odero & Horacio Guido,“ILO Principles Concerning the Right to Strike”, International Labour Review, Vol.137, No.4 (1998), pp.7-10.
(5)See Claire La Hovary,“Showdown at the ILO?A Historical Perspective on the Employers’ Group’s 2012 Challenge to the Right to Strike”, Industrial Law Journal, Vol.42, No.4 (2013), p.338.
(6)See Employers’ Statement in the Committee on the Application of Standards of the International Labor Conference on 4 June 2012,http://www.uscib.org/docs/2012_06_04_ioe_clarifications_statement.pdf,visited on Sep.4,2018.
(7)See ILO, Application of International Labour Standards 2015 (1), Report of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations, Report III (Part 1 A), International Labour Conference, 104th Session, Geneva, 2015, para 29, p.11.
(8)See Tripartite Meeting on the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organize Convention, 1948 (No.87), in Relation to the Right to Strike and the Modalities and Practices of Strike Action at National Level, Geneva, 23-25 February 2015, http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/@ed_norm/@relconf/documents/meetingdocument/wcms_346764.pdf,visited on Sep.4,2018.
(9)See Tonia Novitz,“The Restricted Freedom to Strike:‘Far-Reaching’ ILO Jurisprudence on The Public Sector and Essential Services”, Comparative labor law and policy, Vol.38, No.3 (2017), pp.353-354.
(10)See ILO, Giving Globalization a Human Face, General Survey on the Fundamental Conventions Concerning Rights at Work in Light of the ILO Declaration on Social Justice for a Fair Globalization, 2008, Report III (Part 1B), International Labour Conference, 101st Session, Geneva, 2012.
(11)See Mayoung Nham,“The Right to Strike or the Freedom to Strike: Can Either Interpretation Improve Working Conditions in China?”, George Washington International Law Review, Vol.39, No.2 (2007), p.923.
(12)参见田思路、贾秀芬:《日本劳动法研究》,中国社会科学出版社2013年版,第15页。
(13)参见[德]雷蒙德·瓦尔特曼:《德国劳动法》,沈建峰译,法律出版社2014年版,第368页。
(14)See William B.Gould, A Primer on American Labor Law (3d ed), Cambridge: the MIT Press, 1993, p.97.
(15)See note (11),p.926.
(16)参见田思路、孔令明:“权利争议罢工:正当性否定论”,《当代法学》2017年第4期,第111页。
(17)参见王天玉:“劳动者集体行动治理的司法逻辑——基于2008-2014年已公开的308件罢工案件判决”,《法制与社会发展》2015年第2期,第188页。
(18)陈继盛:《劳工法论文集》,台湾地区陈林法学文教基金会1994年版,第388页。
(19)转引自杨通轩:《争议行为合法性之判断基准》,载《劳动法裁判选辑》,元照出版公司1999年版,第188-192页。
(20)[德]沃尔夫冈·多伊普勒:《德国雇员权益的维护》,唐伦亿、谢立斌译,中国工人出版社2009年版,第40页。
(21)参见[德]曼弗雷德·魏斯、马琳·施米特:《德国劳动法与劳资关系》,倪斐译,商务印书馆2012年版,第226-227页。
(22)See Manfred Weiss & Marlene Schmidt, Labour Law and Industrial Relations in Germany (Fourth revised edition), The Netherlands: Kluwer Law International, 2008, p.203.
(23)Kazuo Sugeno, Japanese Employment and Labor Law, translated by Leo Kanowitz, Durham: Carolina Academic Press, 2002, pp.623-624.
(24)Ibid,pp.19-20.
(25)参见注(13),第479-480页。
(26)参见董保华:“劳动者自发罢工的机理及合法限度”,《甘肃社会科学》2012 年第1期,第120页。
(27)参见王全兴、倪雄飞:“论我国罢工立法与罢工转型的关系”,《现代法学》2012年第4期,第189页。
(28)See Jean-Michel Servais,“The Right to Take Industrial Action and The ILO Supervisory Mechanism Future”, Comparative Labor Law and Policy Journal, Vol.38, No.3 (2017), p.375.
(29)Ibid,p.385.
(30)See David Westfall & Gregor Thüsing,“Strikes and Lockouts in Germany and Under Federal Legislation in The United States: A Comparative Analysis”, Boston College International and Comparative Law Review, Vol.22, No.1 (1999), p.41.
(31)参见注(16),第116页。
(32)参见[日]荒木尚志:《日本劳动法》,李坤刚、牛志奎译,北京大学出版社2010年版,第140页。
(33)参见黄程贯:《劳动法》,台湾新学林出版股份有限公司2009年版,第B-21页。
(34)包括“未加入工会而具有相同主张之劳工达十人以上,或受雇于雇佣劳工未满十人之事业单位,其未加入工会之劳工具有相同主张者达三分之二以上者”。
(35)29 U.S.C.A§157.
(36)NLRB v.Washington Aluminum Company, 370 U.S.9 (1962).
(37)参见[美]罗伯特·A·高尔曼:《劳动法基本教程——劳工联合与集体谈判》,马静、王增森、李妍、刘鹏飞译,中国政法大学出版社2003年版,第263页。
(38)See Fred Witney & Benjamin J.Taylor, U.S.Labor Relations Law: Historical Development, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1992, p.223.
(39)参见注(26),第119-121页。
(40)参见段毅、李琪:“中国集体劳动关系的生成、发展与成熟—一个自下而上的分析视角”,《中国人力资源开发》2014年第23期,第97页。
(41)参见陈步雷、陈朝闻:“劳资自治中的劳动者‘自赋权维权模式’——以广州利得鞋业公司集体劳动争议为例”,《中国人力资源开发》2016年第8期,第106页。
(42)See ILO, Collective Bargaining: A Policy Guide, International Labour Office, Governance and Tripartism Department (GOVERNANCE), Conditions of Work and Equality Department (WORKQUALITY), Geneva, 2015, p.30.
(43)See note ⑩,p.97.
(44)参见注(21),第222页。
(45)See note (23),p.625.
(46)See note (30),pp.47-50.
(47)See ILO, Freedom of Association-Digest of Decisions and Principles of the Freedom of Association Committee of the Governing Body of the ILO, Fifth (revised) edition, 2006, para.532, p.111.
(48)See note (30),pp.49-50.
(49)同注③,第116页。
(50)同注(16),第120页。
(51)参见注(26),第119页。
(52)参见李琪:“启动集体谈判的‘潜机制’”,《中国人力资源开发》2011年第2期,第82-85页。
(53)参见丁嘉惠:“德国不当劳动行为之规范”,《劳工之友》1995年第4期,第14页。
(54)参见李柯夫:“复杂的劳资纠纷,可在法律框架内解决”,载《潇湘晨报》2014年3月26日。
(55)参见[2014]常劳人仲字50号。
(56)See note (23),p.628.
(57)First National M Fireboard Paper Products Corp.v.NLRB,375 U.S.963 (1964).
(58)Fireboard Paper Products Corp.v.NLRB,375 U.S.963 (1964).
(59)参见李干:“我国集体劳动争议的难题与反思——基于自发罢工向制度外的‘涌出’现象”,《宁夏社会科学》2017年第1期,第73页。
(60)参见李琪、戴春:“企业并购中的集体劳动争议及其影响”,《中国人力资源开发》2014年第14期,第103页。
(61)参见郑尚元:《劳动合同法的制度与理念》,中国政法大学出版社2008年版,第304-307页。
(62)同注(33),第A-226页。
(63)See note ④,pp.36-37.
(64)参见注(21),第40页。
(65)参见注(32),第140页。
(66)See Robert E.Allen & Timothy J.Keaveny, Contemporary Labor Relations Addison, Boston: Addison Wesley Longman, 1988, p.552.
(67)See NLRB v.Sands Mfg.Co., 306 U.S.332,(1939).
(68)史尚宽:《劳动法原论》,正大印书馆1978年版,第253页。
(69)参见注(13),第493页。
(70)参见注(32),第140页。
(71)参见肖竹:“群体性劳动争议应对中的政府角色”,《行政法学研究》2014年第2期,第82页。
(72)See note (42),p.60.
(73)See note ⑩,para.247.
(74)参见注(19),第189页。
(75)参见注(32),第142-143页。
(76)See Mastro Plastics Corp.v.Labor Board, 350 U.S.270 (1956).
(77)黄越钦:《劳动法新论》,中国政法大学出版社2003年版,第325页。
(78)See note ④,pp.28-29.
(79)参见注(20),第42页。
(80)参见注(19),第91页。
(81)参见注(12),第263页。
(82)See note (23),p.629.
(83)See Fair Work Act 2009-Sect 414,http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/fwa2009114/s414.html,visited on Sep.20,2018.
(84)See ILO, Freedom of Association and Collective Bargaining, Report III (Part 4B), International Labour Conference 81st Session, 1994, Geneva, para.173-174, p.76.
(85)参见注(20),第41页。
(86)See note (23),p.634.