Preview

BRICS Law Journal

Advanced search

Intermediary in a Collective Labor Dispute Resolution

https://doi.org/10.21684/2412-2343-2019-6-2-33-59

Full Text:

Abstract

Collective labor disputes based on the differences in economic interests between workers and employers can be effectively resolved exclusively through conciliation procedures. Contemporary alternative methods arose mostly due to the necessity to resolve collective labor disputes; mediation for this purpose is applied differently in various countries. National legislation equally provides various means for collective labor dispute resolutions and determines relevant intermediary procedures. An intermediation in a collective labor dispute resolution can be private and/or state-appointed and mandatory or alternative and remains a very perspective means of alternative dispute resolution. An analysis of different countries’ legislation distinguishes several common features of intermediation in collective labor disputes, concerning mainly the goals, objectives and principles. For bodies and persons conducting intermediation, the degree of compulsion in their decisions varies greatly from country to country. However, the obtained experience reveals common and distinctive procedural features and provides the possibility to classify existing approaches, having combined them into groups. The analysis also follows general development trends of collective labor dispute intermediation in different countries and identifies several shortcomings that are characteristic to different systems of intermediation legal regulation. Further research on the most effective ways of collective labor dispute conciliation is necessary for establishing new harmonious labor relations as the grounds for social progress.

About the Authors

L. Zaitseva
Tyumen State University
Russian Federation

Larisa Zaitseva – Professor, head of labor law and entrepreneurship Department

38 Lenina st., Tyumen, 625000, Russia



E. Gomes
Fluminense Federal University
Brazil

Eduardo Gomes  – Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, Fluminense Federal University (UFF), Director of Study Center of the BRICS Countries 

9 Rua Miguel de Frias, Icaraí, Niterói, Rio de Janeiro, 24220-900, Brazil



S. Racheva
Tyumen State University
Russian Federation

Svetlana Racheva  – Associate Professor, English Language Department 

38 Lenina st., Tyumen, 625000, Russia



V. Cruz
Federal University of Rio de Janeiro
Brazil

Verônica Cruz – Political Scientist, Associate Professor, Department of Social Policy, Social Work School

250 Av. Pasteur, Urca, Rio de Janeiro, 22290-240, Brazil

 



References

1. Alexander N. Mediation and the Art of Regulation, 8(1) QUT Law & Justice Journal 1 (2008). https://doi.org/10.5204/qutlr.v8i1.60

2. Barrett J.T. & Barrett J. A History of Alternative Dispute Resolution: The Story of a Political, Social, and Cultural Movement (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2004).

3. De Roo A. & Jagtenberg R.W. Settling Labour Disputes in Europe (Deventer; Boston: Kluwer Law and Taxation, 1994).

4. Ferrari F. The Judicial Attempt at Conciliation: The New Section 185-bis of the Italian Code of Civil Procedure, 2(3) Russian Law Journal 80 (2014). https://doi.org/10.17589/2309-8678-2014-2-3-80-95

5. Fuller L.L. Mediation – Its Forms and Functions, 44(2) Southern California Law Review 305 (1971).

6. Gerasimova E. Collective Labor Disputes and Strikes in Russia: The Impact of Judicial Precedents and Enforcement, 5(2) Russian Law Journal 5 (2017). https://doi.org/10.17589/2309-8678-2017-5-1-5-32

7. Koshiro K. Formal and Informal Aspects of Labor Dispute Resolution in Japan, 22(3-4) Law & Policy 353 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9930.00097

8. Linz J. The Future of an Authoritarian Situation or the Institutionalization of an Authoritarian Regime: The Case of Brazil in Authoritarian Brazil: Origins, Policies, and Future 233 (A. Stepan (ed.), New Haven: Yale University Press, 1973).

9. Love L.P. The Top Ten Reasons Why Mediators Should Not Evaluate, 24(4) Florida State University Law Review 937 (1997).

10. Menkel-Meadow C. The NLRA’s Legacy: Collective or Individual Dispute Resolution or Not?, 26(2) ABA Journal of Labor & Employment Law 249 (2011). https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1694647

11. Moore C.W. The Mediation Process: Practical Strategies for Resolving Conflict (3rd ed., San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2003).

12. Sanders P.H. Types of Labor Disputes and Approaches to Their Settlement, 12(2) Law and Contemporary Problems 211 (1947). https://doi.org/10.2307/1190050

13. Stepan A. Democratizing Brazil: Problems of Transition and Consolidation (New York: Oxford University Press, 1989).

14. Wubie H. The Settlement of Individual and Collective Labor Disputes Under Ethiopian Labour Law, 2(1) E-Journal of International and Comparative Labour Studies 39 (2013).


For citation:


Zaitseva L., Gomes E., Racheva S., Cruz V. Intermediary in a Collective Labor Dispute Resolution. BRICS Law Journal. 2019;6(2):33-59. https://doi.org/10.21684/2412-2343-2019-6-2-33-59

Views: 240


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.


ISSN 2409-9058 (Print)
ISSN 2412-2343 (Online)