雇主不当劳动行为的民事救济——基于我国和美国不当劳动行为救济制度之比较

我国《工会法》第52条规定的责令雇主承担不当劳动行为的民事责任,与美国《国家劳资关系法》第10(c)条的规定看起来很相似,相比之下,这一规范在美国劳动法的实践中很有效,在我国却极少被适用,解释方面也存在较大的分歧。美国是世界上最早创设不当劳动行为救济制度的国家,从《瓦格纳法》规定的雇主不当劳动行为的禁止规范及救济措施,到《塔夫托—哈特莱法》将适用对象扩大到工会和雇员,在雇用自由原则和劳资自治模式的背景下,其演变始终以保护雇员团结权的松紧程度和收放态度为线索。我国《工会法》现正处于第三次修改阶段,适时检讨第52条的解释和适用的障碍,还可以解决其与《劳动合同法》规范的竞合问题。

Civil Remedies against Employers＇ Unfair Labor Practice--A Sysmn Comparison of Unfair labor Practice Romedy between the United States and China

In accordance with Article 52 of the Trade Union Law of our country,employers shall assume the civil liability for unfair labor practice.This provision appears similar to regulations in Article 10(c) of National Labor-Management Relations Act of U.S.,which are effectively applicable in their labor law practice.Comparatively,such regulations are seldom applied in our country and interpretations greatly differ.The unfair labor practice remedy system is first established in the U.S.In the beginning,the Wagner Law regulates prohibition criteria and relief measures of unfair labor practice of employers.Later,the Amendment of Taft-Hartley Act enlarges application objects from employers to trade unions and employees.In accordance with the principle of employment freedom and labor autonomy,the legislative development follows the clue of retractable extent and flexible attitude to the solidarity rights of employees.During the third amendment of the Trade Union Law of our country,it is a proper time to review on the obstacles of interpretation and application of Article 52 as well as to solve the issue of criteria conflicts of the Labor Contract Law and the Trade Union Law.