专业法律机构在《1991年雇佣合同法》下谈判中的作用:破坏者还是救世主?

L. Skiffington
{"title":"专业法律机构在《1991年雇佣合同法》下谈判中的作用:破坏者还是救世主?","authors":"L. Skiffington","doi":"10.26686/NZJIR.V21I1.2257","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article examines the role of the \"new\" legal institutions in bargaining under the Employment Contracts Act 1991 through an analysis of case law and legal research. It provides an overview of bargaining provisions specifically addressing: choice of representatives, authorisation, recognition, rights of access, negotiation and ratification and critically analyses how the legal institutions have interpreted bargaining provisions under the Act. It argues that the free market philosophy underpinning the new regime is fundamentally flawed and that \"free bargaining\" has failed to deliver a workable system. Contrary to the peripheral role envisaged by the Act for the \"new\" legal institutions they had little option but to intervene and assume a traditional role of balancing the competing interests of employer and employees. In the absence of a statutory mandate for intervention, they find themselves in an increasing precarious position pointing to an urgent need for refornt of bargaining provisions and clarification of their role.","PeriodicalId":365392,"journal":{"name":"New Zealand journal of industrial relations","volume":"35 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Role of Specialist Legal Institutions in Bargaining Under the Employment Contracts Act 1991: Saboteurs or Saviours?\",\"authors\":\"L. Skiffington\",\"doi\":\"10.26686/NZJIR.V21I1.2257\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article examines the role of the \\\"new\\\" legal institutions in bargaining under the Employment Contracts Act 1991 through an analysis of case law and legal research. It provides an overview of bargaining provisions specifically addressing: choice of representatives, authorisation, recognition, rights of access, negotiation and ratification and critically analyses how the legal institutions have interpreted bargaining provisions under the Act. It argues that the free market philosophy underpinning the new regime is fundamentally flawed and that \\\"free bargaining\\\" has failed to deliver a workable system. Contrary to the peripheral role envisaged by the Act for the \\\"new\\\" legal institutions they had little option but to intervene and assume a traditional role of balancing the competing interests of employer and employees. In the absence of a statutory mandate for intervention, they find themselves in an increasing precarious position pointing to an urgent need for refornt of bargaining provisions and clarification of their role.\",\"PeriodicalId\":365392,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"New Zealand journal of industrial relations\",\"volume\":\"35 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1900-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"New Zealand journal of industrial relations\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.26686/NZJIR.V21I1.2257\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"New Zealand journal of industrial relations","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.26686/NZJIR.V21I1.2257","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

本文通过对判例法和法律研究的分析,考察了“新”法律制度在1991年《雇佣合同法》下的议价中的作用。它概述了谈判条款,具体涉及:代表的选择、授权、承认、进入的权利、谈判和批准,并批判性地分析了法律机构如何解释该法案下的谈判条款。它认为,支撑新体制的自由市场哲学存在根本性缺陷,“自由议价”未能带来一个可行的体系。与该法为“新”法律机构设想的外围作用相反,它们别无选择,只能进行干预,并承担平衡雇主和雇员相互竞争的利益的传统作用。由于缺乏干预的法定授权,它们发现自己处于越来越不稳定的地位,这表明迫切需要改革谈判条款并澄清它们的作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Role of Specialist Legal Institutions in Bargaining Under the Employment Contracts Act 1991: Saboteurs or Saviours?
This article examines the role of the "new" legal institutions in bargaining under the Employment Contracts Act 1991 through an analysis of case law and legal research. It provides an overview of bargaining provisions specifically addressing: choice of representatives, authorisation, recognition, rights of access, negotiation and ratification and critically analyses how the legal institutions have interpreted bargaining provisions under the Act. It argues that the free market philosophy underpinning the new regime is fundamentally flawed and that "free bargaining" has failed to deliver a workable system. Contrary to the peripheral role envisaged by the Act for the "new" legal institutions they had little option but to intervene and assume a traditional role of balancing the competing interests of employer and employees. In the absence of a statutory mandate for intervention, they find themselves in an increasing precarious position pointing to an urgent need for refornt of bargaining provisions and clarification of their role.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信