Search

This paper argues that Ontario should learn from France and grant non-union workers the statutory right to collective expression and the statutory right to strike. Currently, non-union workers in Ontario cannot meaningfully express their collective voice in the workplace. This is despite the Supreme Court of Canada recognizing that freedom of association under section 2(d) of the Charter protects the right to make collective representations in the workplace, engage in a meaningful process of collective bargaining, and go on strike. This paper calls this dilemma the "freedom of association deficit." In France, all workers have a statutory right to collective expression at work. Additionally, French non-union workers can strike without repercussions from their employer. This paper argues that Ontario should extend a statutory right of collective expression to non-union workers. Further, Ontario should grant non-union workers a statutory right to collectively withdraw their labour if they cannot achieve their goals through expression alone. This paper proposes how Ontario could implement these French rights as incrementally as possible. The result would be a greater collective voice for non-union workers and a shrinking of the freedom of association deficit. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rules governing international civil service as compared with national law are not always clear. The ways that international administrative tribunals protect the principle of the freedom of association and identified the rights by which this principle is manifested and realised are interesting as the realisation of those rights is not always obvious in international organizations. The right to organise, the right to strike, the right to be consulted and the collective bargaining are not words that can be found in constituent documents of international organizations. But they are indispensable for proper function of the organizations. The case law of the tribunals, which this article wishes to present, thus contributes to creating a harmonious workplace for officials of international organizations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper addresses the issue of self-employed platform workers’ access to collective labour rights from the perspective of international law (ILO) and supranational European law (EU and Council of Europe). In this regard, the paper addresses the right to collective bargaining, the right to strike and the collective right to information and consultation. The main finding is that at the current stage, the relevant international and European legal framework is not providing access of self-employed platform workers to all examined collective labour rights. In light of the analysed legal developments the binary divide “has fallen” (for those self-employed platform workers who fulfil the 2022 Guidelines criteria) regarding access to collective bargaining. Therefore, as argued in the paper, also access to the right to strike should be ensured for the latter platform workers due to the purposeful interconnectedness and inseparability of both rights. Nonetheless, the binary divide is remaining “firm” regarding access to collective information and consultation rights. The latter remain accessible (including considering the Platform Work Directive proposal) only to platform workers with a subordinate “worker” status. However, as argued in the paper, the possibility to drop the binary divide (at least regarding certain matters) also in relation to collective information and consultation rights (in the context of platform work) should be seriously considered.

The interposition of a digital platform between consumers and workers providing services, even of a very traditional nature, has led to the creation of a (relatively) new business model, where there is an attempt to deny providers access to rights and protections typical of labour law; among these, collective rights. My intervention aims to offer a comparison between the Italian legal system, on one hand, and the American and British ones on the other, demonstrating how the former, unlike the latter, thanks to the support provided by the workers’ statute to freedom and union activity in workplaces, has managed to provide the necessary tools to effectively address the aforementioned challenges.

In the context of the right to strike among members of the police force, two positions can be identified: on one side, there are those who predominantly argue that it is legitimate to limit or even suppress this right for this group of workers, and on the other side, there are those who contend that the right to strike is a labor right recognized in the Constitution without exceptions. This paper approaches this topic from a fresh perspective that, through an interpretation of Article 57 of the Constitution alongside other constitutional provisions and the principles of human rights protection, supports the thesis that public officials, including members of the police force, have a recognized right to strike. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Conference Journal of Social Policy / Sosyal Siyaset Konferanslar Dergisi is the property of Journal of Social Policy Conferences/Sosyal Siyaset Konferanslar Dergisi and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Hacettepe Law Review is the property of Hacettepe Law Review and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The Violent strikes are serious problems in South Africa. However, the international and regional legal frameworks, the Constitution as well as the national legislation provide for the protection of the right to strike for employees. Workers are therefore entitled to exercise their right to strike under the prescribed legal frameworks. The strikes are frequently characterised by violence and harm in every sector. There are compelling reasons for employees to embark on strikes and they are discouraged from engaging in acts of misconduct during strikes. Violent strikes have devastating effects on the fundamental rights of individuals. They usually cause injury to members of the community and non-striking workers. Therefore, they unreasonable and unjustifiably limit the freedom to exercise the fundamental rights. The use of violence during strikes is a major concern as it negatively defeats the purpose of strikes. Such violence has a negative impact on the lives of non-striking employees and undermine the rights to property, dignity, trade, freedom and security of the person. Striking employees must take reasonable steps to avoid violence and ensure the protection of fundamental rights of all other persons during the strikes.

The article discusses the recent Supreme Court decision in cement company, Glacier Northwest v. Teamsters Local Union No. 174, which ruled against protecting striking cement truck drivers under the National Labor Relations Act, potentially undermining the right to strike. Topics include the history of restrictions on the right to strike in the U.S., global trends in limiting strike rights, and the implications of the Supreme Court's decision for future labor disputes and collective action.

The Violent strikes are serious problems in South Africa. However, the international and regional legal frameworks, the Constitution as well as the national legislation provide for the protection of the right to strike for employees. Workers are therefore entitled to exercise their right to strike under the prescribed legal frameworks. The strikes are frequently characterised by violence and harm in every sector. There are compelling reasons for employees to embark on strikes and they are discouraged from engaging in acts of misconduct during strikes. Violent strikes have devastating effects on the fundamental rights of individuals. They usually cause injury to members of the community and non-striking workers. Therefore, they unreasonable and unjustifiably limit the freedom to exercise the fundamental rights. The use of violence during strikes is a major concern as it negatively defeats the purpose of strikes. Such violence has a negative impact on the lives of non-striking employees and undermine the rights to property, dignity, trade, freedom and security of the person. Striking employees must take reasonable steps to avoid violence and ensure the protection of fundamental rights of all other persons during the strikes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

2022 was a year of major change in the legal framework for industrial relations in Australia. Newly elected in May 2022, the Albanese ALP Government immediately commenced an ambitious reform agenda for labour relations, convening a National Jobs and Skills Summit in September 2022, and shortly thereafter achieving the passage of the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Act 2022 (SJBP Act). One central aim of the SJBP Act was to address shortcomings in the legal framework for collective bargaining found in the Fair Work Act 2009 (FW Act), and to this end, the amendments introduced new provisions for multi-employer bargaining, made changes to the agreement approval provisions and changed the bargaining landscape around intractable disputes. This article examines key aspects of the SJBP Act impacting collective bargaining in Australia. In particular, we consider the new provisions for multi-employer bargaining in the 'Single Interest Employer Bargaining' stream along with amendments of the FW Act relating to the commencement of bargaining for single-enterprise agreements, agreement-making using small voting cohorts, the resolution of intractable bargaining disputes, applications to terminate enterprise agreements, and the sunsetting of the so-called 'zombie' agreements. This analysis of the new legal provisions is situated in the context of recent union campaigns and bargaining disputes at various Australian employers, enabling us to explain the rationale for the amendments and assess their practical utility and limitations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article examines the evolution of the Italian right to strike between 1945 and the end of the so-called long autumn of industrial conflict (1969-1980), a period in which strikes reached a peak compared to most of Western Europe and North America. Rather than focusing on ideological and political ruptures, the sources of continuity posed by legal institutions – mainly the right to strike – are examined. An analysis of the jurisprudential changes in the right to strike enables me to show that the disincentives to go on strike dramatically decreased from the early 1960s, while disincentives to lock out workers rose. In conclusion, I show that Italian legal institutions were not effective in laying the basis for industrial peace. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Çalışma ve Toplum is the property of Calisma ve Toplum and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Essential services are commonly defined as those services whose interruption might inflict substantial harm on the population at large. Police, firefighters, and emergency medical professionals are paradigmatic examples of essential service providers. In recent years, some governments have resolved that formal primary education should be added to this list of essential services. The immediate practical implication of designating education as an essential service is that workers tasked with providing this service will face new limitations or even outright prohibitions on their freedom to strike. This paper analyzes the harm-based justification for declaring formal primary public education an essential service—that is, to consider if education is one service whose interruption might inflict substantial harm on the population at large. I argue that there is no compelling case to be made for changing the status of primary education from non-essential to essential and discuss why teachers' right to strike should be protected. On the one hand, it is unclear to what extent educators' participation in strikes can produce a type of harm that justifies limiting their right to strike. On the other hand, restricting that right has costs that must be weighed in any plausible harm-based account. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Zeitschrift fur Wirtschaftspolitik is the property of De Gruyter and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Scholars have made important advances in explaining policy drift, uncovering the prevalence of drift in veto-riddled systems, the importance of bureaucratic discretion and statutory ambiguity in combatting drift, and its feedback effects. Despite research demonstrating the potential for judicial action to alleviate drift, we know little about the potential for the Supreme Court to facilitate policy drift. I argue that the Supreme Court may operate as a powerful agent of drift by stripping statutes of ambiguity, foreclosing policy innovation in institutions outside of Congress, and curtailing bureaucratic discretion and authority. To demonstrate these mechanisms, I show how in the case of federal labor law, the Court's jurisprudence addressing the right to strike, federal preemption, and National Labor Relations Board authority played a central role in gradually undoing the efficacy of The National Labor Relations Act. This inquiry has important implications for understanding public policy, judicial power, the development of American labor law, and American democracy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Ius et Praxis (07172877) is the property of Universidad de Talca and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Revista de Derecho de la Seguridad Social, Laborum is the property of Ediciones Laborum S.L. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

On 22 October 2020, the Constitutional Tribunal (Poland’s constitutional court) issued a ruling that effectively restricted the legality of abortion, which triggered massive protests (“women’s strike”). In this paper, I take a deeper look at the women’s strike in Poland in order to examine whether its central demand, i.e. the change of law on abortion, pertains to occupational or socio-economic interests of workers and thus meets the criteria for subject matter appropriate to a strike. I also discuss whether this demand may be raised by an actor, such as the “Polish Women’s Strike”, that is not a labour union. The model of the right to strike enshrined in the Polish Constitution and ILO standards (ILO case no 3111 against Poland) prompts a broad interpretation of the right to strike, which leads to the conclusion that politically motivated strikes are allowed under Polish law. I then review the potential interdependencies between abortion and workers’ rights and argue that changing the law on abortion meets the legal criteria for strike demands. Nevertheless, organizations that are not created to represent the collective interests of workers have no legally sanctioned powers to call a strike.

In the judgment of the ECtHR in the case of Association of Academics v. Iceland, the Court commented on two important issues concerning the broadly understood procedure for resolving collective disputes. Firstly, the Court pointed out that “found that the taking of industrial action should be accorded the status of an essential element of the Article 11 guarantee but it is clear that strike action is protected by Article 11 as it is considered to be a part of trade union activity”. Secondly, it considered that the institution of mandatory arbitration could be a substitute for the right to strike, which was prohibited due to the need to protect the health of Icelandic citizens. In the context of the issues outlined in this way, the aim of the gloss is to verify the two theses mentioned above. First, the thesis was analyzed according to which the right to strike is not an essential element of freedom of association. For this reason, the jurisprudence of the Tribunal has been discussed against the background of ILO standards, taking into account the doctrine’s views on the status of the right to strike in the system of human rights protection and its relationship with other irenic methods of dispute resolution. Secondly, the thesis of the ECtHR was verified, according to which the mandatory arbitration established by the Icelandic legislator in the circumstances presented in the facts of the case does not constitute a violation of the right to strike. As part of the second thesis, the concept of mandatory arbitration and its status in the jurisprudence of the Court, as well as ILO bodies and labor law doctrine were analyzed. Finally, the relationship between the right to strike and social arbitration was examined.

The year 2013 was important in the history of labour relations in Zimbabwe as it ushered in the country's Constitution which introduced labour rights under its Declaration of Rights. The article discusses constitutional protection of the right to strike under section 65 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe. It further explores this constitutional right to strike and its effect on both private-sector and publicsector employees. Further, it discusses the scope of the right to strike in terms of the Labour Act, which largely applies to private-sector employees. This is because Zimbabwe has a two-tier labour relations system consisting of privatesector and public-sector employees. Public-sector employees derive their right to strike directly from the Constitution. To put the right to strike into its proper context, international standards on this right are briefly discussed. Important lessons are also drawn from South African labour law and practice since South African constitutional provisions on the right to strike are almost similar to those of Zimbabwe. The article then proceeds to highlight how the right to strike has been linked or can be used in some instances to fulfil political objectives. It also highlights how the State may view the right to strike with suspicion. Finally, recommendations are made on how the right to strike can be improved in both law and practice so that it fulfils its intended objectives of achieving better working conditions for employees at the workplace. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Veritas Luris is the property of Lazarski University and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Çalışma ve Toplum is the property of Calisma ve Toplum and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Çalışma ve Toplum is the property of Calisma ve Toplum and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

In the judgment of the ECtHR in the case of Association of Academics v. Iceland, the Court commented on two important issues concerning the broadly understood procedure for resolving collective disputes. Firstly, the Court pointed out that "found that the taking of industrial action should be accorded the status of an essential element of the Article 11 guarantee but it is clear that strike action is protected by Article 11 as it is considered to be a part of trade union activity". Secondly, it considered that the institution of mandatory arbitration could be a substitute for the right to strike, which was prohibited due to the need to protect the health of Icelandic citizens. In the context of the issues outlined in this way, the aim of the gloss is to verify the two theses mentioned above. First, the thesis was analyzed according to which the right to strike is not an essential element of freedom of association. For this reason, the jurisprudence of the Tribunal has been discussed against the background of ILO standards, taking into account the doctrine's views on the status of the right to strike in the system of human rights protection and its relationship with other irenic methods of dispute resolution. Secondly, the thesis of the ECtHR was verified, according to which the mandatory arbitration established by the Icelandic legislator in the circumstances presented in the facts of the case does not constitute a violation of the right to strike. As part of the second thesis, the concept of mandatory arbitration and its status in the jurisprudence of the Court, as well as ILO bodies and labor law doctrine were analyzed. Finally, the relationship between the right to strike and social arbitration was examined. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Mülkiye Dergisi is the property of Mulkiye Dergisi and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Çalışma ve Toplum is the property of Calisma ve Toplum and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Strikes often lack a reasonable chance of success unless they violate some basic liberties (of contract, movement, etc.). This creates a dilemma for liberal democracies that recognize a right to strike: either the right is toothless, or the basic liberties do not have priority and so are not basic. Alex Gourevitch argues that grounding the radical right to strike in an interest in freedom resolves the dilemma. We point out an ambiguity in this solution: it either does not solve the dilemma, or it tacitly presupposes that there is no dilemma. However, we go on to show that a modified, dynamic conception of the radical right to strike can ground its priority, albeit at the expense of the basicness of certain static basic liberties. What is more, we argue that this generalizes to other forms of direct action, such as the recent Black Lives Matter blockades and those at Standing Rock. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Estudios de Derecho is the property of Estudios de Derecho and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This article deals with the issue of extending the right to conduct a collective labour dispute to persons performing paid work under civil law contracts, after the entry into force of the Act of 5 July 2018 amending the Act on Trade Unions and Certain Other Acts (Journal of Laws 2018, item 1608). The author considers the question whether and to what extent the right to strike and to take industrial action, provided for in the Act of 23 May 1991 on Resolution of Collective Disputes (consolidated text: Journal of Laws 2020, item 123), extends to civil lawful contractors. The position is presented that the proper application of the above mentioned law to the indicated circle of work contractors cannot mean the deprivation or limitation of their right to strike and to take industrial action. The solutions implemented by the Polish legislator with regard to persons performing work outside the employment relationship are more advantageous and far-reaching in comparison with the requirements resulting from the international labour law acts binding on Poland. However, there are specific problems with applying to these persons some of the regulations included in the Act on Resolution of Collective Disputes. These problems results from the fact that the individual legal relationship between these persons and the entities employing them is based on the provisions of civil law, and not on the Labour Code.

Copyright of Revista Jurídica (0103-3506) is the property of Revista Juridica and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Iş, Güç: The Journal of Industrial Relations & Human Resources is the property of Is, Guc: The Journal of Industrial Relations & Human Resources and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The article discusses the United Kingdom government's attempts to curb workers' right to strike through the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill. The bill aims to remove statutory immunity and unfair dismissal protection for workers participating in strikes, potentially barring some employees from taking part in industrial action, sparking concerns about its compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights and international law.

This article endeavours to analyse the main issues identified by the OECD within Colombian legislation and practices on the right to strike (as a key tool for the effective defence of constitutional rights of association, negotiation, and freedom of unions). Thus, it will identify the effects, mid and long terms adjustments and projections Colombia has committed to along with expectations and best practices to be potentially implemented by the government and legislative authorities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Çalışma ve Toplum is the property of Calisma ve Toplum and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Ottawa Law Review is the property of University of Ottawa, Faculty of Law and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Labour Law & Social Policy Issues / Z Problematyki Prawa Pracy i Polityki Socjalnej is the property of Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Slaskiego and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Precedente is the property of Universidad ICESI and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The Federal Constitutional Court has decided that the prohibition to strike for career civil servants, as it has traditionally been part of the German legal order, is in compliance with the German Constitution. The Court thereby put a (provisional) end to a long-lasting debate on how to solve the tension between the fundamental freedom to form associations under Article 9(3) of the Basic Law, which arguably encompasses a right to strike, and Article 33(5) of the Basic Law, which protects the traditional principles of the career civil servants, which arguably encompasses the prohibition to strike. Through recognizing that the ban on strike action by career civil servants is not only allowed but required under the German Constitution, the Constitutional Court navigates the German legal order on a potential collision course with the European Convention on Human Rights and the European Court of Human Rights. In this context, the Constitutional Court on the one hand reaffirms the openness of the German constitutional order towards international law in general and human rights and the European Convention on Human Rights in particular. On the other hand, the Court somehow marginalizes the role of the European Court of Human Rights and threatens to not follow the Court should it hold that the European Convention on Human Rights demands a right to strike also for career civil servants.