摘要
"违反强制性规定的劳动合同"集中反映了劳动法中私人自治和国家规制的复杂纠葛。对我国司法的实证研究表明:劳动案件中对强制性规定的适用已不再是个案式的,而呈现出一定的规律性,但背后的原理尚待探明,既有的分歧尚待消弭。经由"形式控制"和"结构控制",可能导致合同无效的强制性规定被缩限到侧重规范主体和规范行为、具有公法性质的法律、法规和规章;经由"实质控制",未通过规范目的和利益分析检验的强制性规定进一步排除。基于三重控制的操作,行之有效的司法经验被梳理,徒劳无功的做法被摈弃,聚讼不已的冲突被化解,最终,劳动合同中的自治和规制得以平衡。
The complicate relationship between the Private Autonomy and State Regulation is reflected by the labor contracts violating the compulsory provisions.The empirical study on China judicial practice indicates that the compulsory provisions are applied case by case,rather with regular pattern.However,the principles lurked in the phenomenon have not revealed and the existing divergence has not resolved.Therefore,through the Formal Control and Structural Control,the compulsory provisions rendering the contract void are restricted to the laws,rules and administrative regulations with the nature of public law,which mainly regulate the objects and acts;through Substantial Control,the compulsory provisions are further excluded,which fail to meet the examination of normative aims and interest analysis.Based on the triple control,the effective judicial experience is refined,the futile operations are abandoned,and the controversial conflicts are dissolved.Finally,the autonomy and regulation of labor contracts are balanced.
出处
《法学家》
CSSCI
北大核心
2017年第2期56-68,共13页
The Jurist
关键词
劳动合同
强制性规定
实质控制
Labor Contract
Compulsory Provisions
Substantial Control
