Loading...
|
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/96729
|
| Title: | 歐洲聯盟勞資爭議行為法制之研究——兼論德國法制之因應 |
| Other Titles: | A Study on the Legal System of Labor Disputes Settlement in the European Union — With A Discussion of the German System |
| Authors: | 楊通軒
Yang, Tong-Shuan |
| Keywords: | 歐盟的爭議行為法;歐盟的團體協約法;初級共同體法;次級共同體法;罷工;鎖廠 |
| Date: | 2007-12 |
| Issue Date: | 2016-05-20 10:42:51 (UTC+8) |
| Abstract: | 歐盟統合在經過四十年之後，至今仍無「歐盟的爭議行為法」或「歐盟的團體協約法」的規範產生（含初級共同體法及次級共同體法）。至於在往後的發展過程中，是否會形成對於爭議權給予基本權的保障、以及歐盟是否有興趣於整合各會員國的爭議行為法令，完全是視罷工及鎖廠在各個會員國、以及（尤其是）在歐盟層次將來所扮演的角色而定。在此，歐盟條約第一三九條所規定之社會夥伴的對話，提供了將來「團體協約法歐盟化（Europaeisierung des Tarifrechts）」的思考空間。同時，也無可避免地啟動了將爭議行為統一化的程序。學者間實有必要再加強論述之。惟不可否認的，在歐盟的爭議行為法制尚未出現之前，會員國的爭議行為法制也必須加入歐盟的視野，擴大解釋維護與促進勞動條件與經濟條件的活動空間，盡量將國家的爭議行為法制保持競爭中立的要求，以防堵惡性的「社會成本的競爭（Sozialkostenwettbewerb）」的情況出現。\\r 整體而言，歐盟爭議行為法制之發展及其內涵，約有以下幾點：\\r 一、歐盟在集體勞資關係的發展上，恪遵輔助原則、排外條款及有限度的個別授權原則，原則上尊重各會員國既有集體勞動關係法制之發展；\\r 二、歐盟統合至今，並不承認爭議行為具有基本權之地位；\\r 三、適用於歐盟之團結自由或團結權的國際條約雖有多種，但均無法導出歐盟層次之爭議行為受到保障；\\r 四、至於在歐盟條約或其他次級的共同體法（尤其是指令）中，亦無法得出有爭議行為之保障規定；\\r 五、面對著跨國的爭議行為，歐盟目前僅能以衝突法之方法處理其法律問題；\\r 六、惟不可忽略的是，各國衝突法中債的規定，其設計一般均僅適用於個別（勞動）契約所引起之法律問題而已。而爭議行為法令之適用，一般均被認為屬於內國的公序良俗，無法經由選法過程而被排除適用。因此，似有必要採取另一種處理方式；\\r 七、固然歐盟爭議行為法的制定有其必要性，惟基於主客觀因素的限制，並無法期待在短期間立法有成。因此，效法各會員國爭議行為法制的形成歷史，仰賴歐洲法院的法官以逐案判決的方式，逐步形成爭議行為法的原理原則，顯然有其必要與實益。
After forty years of ‘unification’ the standard of ‘Law for Settlement of Labor Disputes’ or ‘Collective Bargaining Agreement Law’ has not yet, however, been developed (including both primary community law and secondary community law) in the European Union. As for future developments, whether or not the basic protection of the right of labor dispute will be formed, and also whether the European Union will take an interest in integrating labor dispute settlement laws in various member nations, is completely dependent upon which role of strike and factory lock-out will be taken in each member nation, as well as in the European Union(in particular) in the future. In this respect, the dialogues between social partners stipulated by the European Union Treaty 139th, will provide a thinking space for a future ‘European Union collective bargaining agreement law (Europaeisierung des Tarifrechts).’ At the same time, a procedure for unifying dispute actions will inevitably be implemented. It is essential for scholars to strengthen and elaborate it. However, undeniably, before a legal system for the settlement of labor disputes appears in the European Union, legal systems for the settlement of labor disputes in the member nations must also be positioned within the European Union’s field of vision, and expand an active space for explaining, maintaining and promoting working and economic conditions. In order to prevent a ‘vicious competition of social costs (Sozialkostenwettbewerb)’ from appearing, the national legal systems for the settlement of labor disputes in each member nation be rendered as competitively neutral as possible.\\r On the whole, the main points for the development and connotation of legal systems for the settlement of labor disputes in the European Union are approximately as follows:\\r 1.Regarding the development of the legal system fgoverning collective labor and management relations, the European Union fully obeys the complementary principle, anti-foreign provision and limited individual authorization principle; in principle, the development of existing legal systems of collective labor-management relations in variousmember nations is respected;\\r 2.With continued integration, the European Union has not yet acknowledged labor dispute behavior as having the status of basic rights;\\r 3.Although there are many kinds of international conventions applicable to unity freedom or unity right in the European Union, the protection of labor dispute behavior on the European Union level cannot be derived from these conventions;\\r 4.As for regulations in the European Union treaty or other secondary community law (directives in particular) for the protection of labor dispute behavior, they have also proved to be unobtainable;\\r 5.Facing cross-border dispute behavior, the European Union at present can only handle its legal matters by means of conflict law;\\r 6.However, we cannot disregard the fact that in various countries conflict law regulations of debt are generally designed only to apply to legal matters arising from individual (laboring) contracts. The application of laws and decrees governing labor disputes is generally considered as belonging to a nation`s public order and good customs; hence, it is unable to avert its application by choosing a legal process. Accordingly, it seems necessary to adopt another way to deal with it.\\r 7.It is indeed necessary to enact the European Union’s legal systems for the settlement of labor disputes. Nevertheless, due to the restrictions imposed by both subjective and objective factors, it is impossible to anticipate a successful enactment in the short term. Therefore, it is obviously important and would be beneficial to follow the examples of the historical development of legal systems for the settlement of labor disputes in member countries, and to rely on verdicts announced by judges of the European Court of Justice on a case-by-case basis, so as to gradually form the legal principles for the settlement of labor disputes. |
| Relation: | 法學評論, 100, 215-324 |
| Data Type: | article |
| Appears in Collections: | [政大法學評論 TSSCI] 期刊論文
|
Files in This Item:
| File |
Description |
Size | Format | |
|---|
| 100(215-324).pdf | | 1347Kb | Adobe PDF2 | 694 | View/Open |
|
All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.
|
