...
  • 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Employee relations >Unveiling the legal effect of collective agreements in China
【24h】

Unveiling the legal effect of collective agreements in China

机译：揭示中国集体协议的法律效力

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine the actual legal effect of collective agreements by focusing on the litigation regarding the implementation of collective agreements in China where current literature on the topic is scarce. Design/methodology/approach This paper deploys both quantitative and qualitative methods to investigate the features of litigation regarding collective agreements. The judgments on collective agreement by people's courts nationwide from 1 January 2014 to 31 December 2018 provide the primary empirical data. The intrinsic features of collective agreement disputes are investigated to delineate different sorts of theoretically presumed legal effect, namely contractual, normative and other (if any). A number of collective agreement templates and texts have been gathered and analysed to further explore the factors leading to collective agreement disputes. A dozen of labour law professionals, workers, scholars and trade union officials, were interviewed to verify the findings. Findings The number of collective agreement disputes is relatively small compared to the number of valid collective agreements or the volume of other labour disputes. This study found no litigation initiated by trade unions to claim a remedy against a violation of a collective agreement by an employer. However, a growing number of cases were filed by individual workers to complain about the terms and conditions of their individual employment agreements in contradiction to the existing collective agreement. These data do not mean that collective agreements lack problems or have no significance in action. A novel effect - a "substitution effect" - is evident in the existing labour litigations and relatively popular amongst employers, as they often refer to the collective agreement when a written individual agreement, as the mandatory document, is absent. The advent of substitution effect reflects a pragmatic view amongst Chinese labour law professionals, employers and workers. Research limitations/implications - Due to the recent establishment of the online judgments database, this study has focused on collective agreement litigation in people's courts from 2014 to 2018, which is representative of the national trend of such disputes and thus provides valuable insights. Future studies should cover a wider time span and extend to the collective agreement disputes subject to labour arbitration to provide a fuller picture of the challenges and potential solutions. Practical implications - By understanding the legal effect of collective agreements in reality, the legislature, workers and employers can act accordingly to enhance or empower it. The insignificant volume of both contractual and normative claims on collective agreements indicates the pressing need to inject something concrete into both substantive rights and the implementation mechanisms of collective agreements. The existence of substitution claims illustrates the room for further implementation of written individual agreements to reduce the need to borrow from collective agreements to fill the void left by the absence of individual agreements. Originality/value This study uniquely evaluates collective agreement disputes in China to seek their true legal effect, finding the substitution effect of collective agreements that was absent from the prior literature. The features of collective agreements are reflected in this work, together with public policy and theoretical implications.
机译：目的本文的目的是通过专注于关于中国在中国的集体协议执行情况的诉讼来审查集体协议的实际法律效力，其中目前的文献是稀缺的。设计/方法/方法本文部署了定量和定性方法，以调查关于集体协议的诉讼特征。全国人民法院集体协定的判断从2014年1月1日至2018年12月31日提供主要经验数据。集体协议纠纷的内在特征被调查以描绘不同种类的理论上假定的法律效力，即合同，规范和其他（如果有的话）。已经收集并分析了一些集体协议模板和文本，以进一步探讨导致集体协议纠纷的因素。接受了十几位的劳动法专业人士，工人，学者和工会官员核实调查结果。结果表明，与有效集体协议的数量或其他劳动纠纷的数量相比，集体协议纠纷的数量相对较少。本研究发现，不受工会发起的诉讼，以违反雇主违反集体协议的补救措施。但是，个别工人提出了越来越多的案件，以抱怨其个人就业协议的条款和条件矛盾，涉及现有的集体协议。这些数据并不意味着集体协议缺乏问题或在行动中没有意义。一种新的效果 - “替代效应” - 在现有的劳动诉讼中明显，在雇主中相对流行，因为当缺席书面个人协议时，他们经常指的是集体协议。替代效果的出现反映了中国劳工法专业人员，雇主和工人之间的务实观点。研究限制/影响 - 由于最近在线判断数据库的建立，本研究侧重于2014年至2018年人民法院的集体协议诉讼，这是代表这种争议的国家趋势，从而提供有价值的见解。未来的研究应涵盖更广泛的时间跨度，并扩展到劳动仲裁的集体协议纠纷，以提供更全面的挑战和潜在解决方案。实际意义 - 通过了解现实中集体协议的法律效力，立法机关，工人和雇主可以相应地加强或赋予它。关于集体协议的合同和规范索赔的非关头数量表明，迫切需要将一些混凝土注入实质性权利和集体协议的实施机制。替代申请的存在说明了进一步实施书面个人协议的房间，以减少借入集体协议的必要性，以通过没有个人协议填补空白。原创性/价值本研究唯一地评估了中国的集体协议纠纷，寻求其真正的法律效力，找到了现有文学中缺席的集体协议的替代效果。集体协议的特征在这项工作中反映，以及公共政策和理论意义。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号