摘要
“集体停工和群体性事件”高发是劳动争议法治化的重要议题,但我国集体劳动法所能提供的制度供给极为有限,仅《工会法》第27条“停工”规则与之直接相关。加之《工会法》第27条系原则性的程序性规则,“集体停工”高发之“实”难以通过虚化的“停工”规则在集体劳动法层面得以实体性解决,因而将“集体停工”所引发的劳动争议转化为个体劳动法层面的司法裁判之“实”,便成为现行制度条件下的现实选择。法院审理“集体停工”所引发的劳动争议,一方面需要明晰《工会法》第27条之“停工”并非罢工的同义词,“停工”规则更非对罢工行为的赋权条款,罢工行为在我国尚不享有责任豁免。另一方面针对最为常见的解雇争议,需根据劳动者“集体停工”的缘由,区分履行抗辩权之“停工”与违约性“停工”,结合具体事实情节判定劳动者停止工作与用人单位解雇的法律属性。
The high incidence of“collective work stoppage and mass disturbance”is an important issue in labor law.However,the institutional supply provided by China’s collective labor law is extremely limited,only the rule of“work-stoppage”in Article 27 of the Trade Union Law is directly related to it.Combined with the article 27 being anabstract procedural rule,it can hardly solve the“work-stoppage”substantively at the level of collective labor law.Therefore,based on the current legal system,solving the labor disputes arising from “work-stoppage”by judicial departments at the level of individual labor law becomes a realistic choice.To achieve this,it is necessary to clarify that the term of“work-stoppage”in Article 27 of the Trade Union Law is not synonymous with a strike.Besides,the“work-stoppage”rule is not an empowering provision for strikes,and strikes do not enjoy immunity from liability in China.On the other hand,according to the causes of collective work-stoppage,it is necessary to distinguish between the “workstoppage”as a defence right of performance and the“work-stoppage”as a breach of contract.The judges should determine the legal nature of“work-stoppage”on the basis of specific facts.
出处
《交大法学》
CSSCI
2022年第5期138-153,共16页
SJTU Law Review
关键词
停工
罢工
集体
劳动法
履行抗辩权
劳动争议
Work-Stoppage
Strike
Collective Labor Law
Defence Right of Performance
Labor Dispute
