摘要
劳动者集体行动须根据争议起因区分利益争议与权利争议,适用不同的处理方式。利益争议发生时,从传统市民法出发,罢工系劳动者集体且消极地不提供劳务,不仅违反了契约上的劳动给付义务,还容易侵害雇主或第三人的财产权或人身自由权等权利;但从社会法视角来看,确需赋予劳动者罢工权作为集体协商的最后压力手段以平衡劳资力量。法律一旦赋权,将使争议行为在一定限度内不仅在刑事上可阻却违法,且在民事上亦可免除劳动者对于雇主所造成之损害赔偿责任,因此罢工权适用"法无授权即禁止"。同时作为一种"特权",罢工权的行使将被限制在有限的范围内,权利争议一般不允许罢工,只有在用人单位不履行债务或者履行债务不符合约定时,劳动者依据履行抗辩权,方可集体拒绝履行工作义务。
Workers' collective action must be classified into rights dispute and interest dispute, according to the cause of the dispute, and then be applied different rules. If the action is caused by interest dispute, from the traditional civil law, the workers violate the labor contract, and evendamage the employer's or other people's property rights. But from the perspective of social law, it is necessary to give workers the right to strike to force the employer to return to the negotiating table. If workers are given the right to strike, they will be free from criminal and civil liability. When the law hasn't given workers' the right to strike,the workers are not allowed to strike. As a special right, the right should be used only when the dispute is for interest. If the dispute is for rights, workers are not allowed to strike. But there is an exception, when the employer violates the labor contract first, the workers can refuse to work, according to the counterargument right for performance.
出处
《中国政法大学学报》
CSSCI
2016年第6期62-73,161,共12页
Journal Of CUPL
基金
国家社会科学基金重点项目"集体劳动争议处理和应对的法律机制研究"(14AZD048)
华东政法大学优秀博士论文培育项目(2016-1-001)阶段性成果
华东政法大学博士生海外调研项目资助
