GROUPS OF LEGAL ENTITIES IN COLLECTIVE LABOR LAW OF FOREIGN COUNTRIES
https://doi.org/10.17803/1994-1471.2016.71.10.118-123
Abstract
An opportunity to conduct business through a group of legal entities (a group of interdependent employers) provokes possibilities for infringement of basic workers' rights to representation and collective bargaining. Fragmentation of essentially a single working team significantly reduces the effectiveness of mechanisms of influence exercised by employees on an employer. The problems associated with the need to determine an actual employer in collective labor law can be expressed in the need to determine the appropriate level of negotiations, the question concerning the limits of distribution of collective agreements, the legality of conducting solidarity strikes. Legislation and judicial practice of many countries, as well as some normative acts adopted at the EU level, provide for guarantees of rights of workers in this field. As a result of examination of international experience the author concludes that it is necessary to make amendments in the labor legislation of the Russian Federation aimed at bringing the regulation of relations connected with labor relations within the framework of groups of interrelated employers in compliance with the most advanced foreign practices.
References
1. Act № 2004-391 ввел новую статью L.132-19-1 в Кодекс труда Франции.
2. Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies // URL: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/ALL/?uri=CELEX:31998L0059 (дата обращения: 24 августа 2016 г.).
3. Case C-44/2008. [2009] ECR I-8163 (ECJ), AG [50].
4. Carner v. MGS-576 5th Ave. Inc., 992 F. Supp. 340, 350 (цитируется в деле Murray v. Miner, 74 F. 3d 402, 404 n/1 (2d Cir. 1996)).
5. South Prairie Construction Company v. Local No. 627, International Union Of Operating Engineers, Afl-Cio, Et Al. National Labor Relations Board v. Local No. 627, International Union Of Operating Engineers, Afl-Cio, Et Al // URL: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/425/800 (дата обращения: 24 августа 2016 г.).
6. Crawford Door Sales Co., 226 N.L.R.B. 1144, 1144 (1976).
7. Burswood Catering and Entertainment Pty Ltd v ALHMWU (WA Branch) [2002] WASCA 354 (Western Australian Industrial Appeal Court).
8. Gerace Construction, 193 NLRB 645 (1971)
9. American Bell Inc. v. Federation of Telephone Workers, 736 F.2d 879, 886 (3d Cir. 1984).
10. Wezel Stone K. Van. Labor and the Corporate Structure: Changing Conceptions and Emerging Possibilities // 55 U. Chi. L. Rev. 73. 1988. P. 73-173.
11. Определение Верховного Суда РФ от 21.06.2013 № 80-АПГ13-1.
12. National Labor Relations Act // URL: http://www.nlrb.gov/resources/national-labor-relations-act (дата обращения: 23 августа 2016 г.).
13. NLRB Annual Report. 1956 // URL: https://www.nlrb.gov/sites/default/files/attachments/basic-page/ node-1677/nlrb1956.pdf (дата обращения: 26 августа 2016 г.). Radio & Television Broad. Technicians, Local 1264 v. Broadcast Serv. Inc., 380 U.S. 255, 256 (1965).
14. Glenn J. A. Ally and Single Enterprise Doctrines in Secondary Boycott Cases // 13 A.L.R. Fed. 466. 1972. P. 532-538.
15. NLRB v. Marinor Inns, Inc., 445 F.2d 538 (5th Cir. 1971).
16. Герасимова Е.С. Законодательство России о коллективных трудовых спорах и забастовках: проблемы и направления совершенствования // Трудовое право в России и за рубежом. - 2012. - № 1. - С. 29-36.
17. Glenn J. A. Ally and Single Enterprise Doctrines in Secondary Boycott Cases // 13 A.L.R. Fed. 466. - 1972. - P. 532-538.
18. Wezel Stone K. Van. Labor and the Corporate Structure: Changing Conceptions and Emerging Possibilities // 55 U. Chi. L. Rev. - 73. - 1988. - P. 73-173.
Review
For citations:
Havajashkhov A.A. GROUPS OF LEGAL ENTITIES IN COLLECTIVE LABOR LAW OF FOREIGN COUNTRIES. Actual Problems of Russian Law. 2016;(10):118-123. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17803/1994-1471.2016.71.10.118-123
Views:
405
Email this article 