Labour arbitration in Ukraine: current state of legal regulation and prospects for development
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The article is devoted to a comprehensive study of labour arbitration as one of the out-of-court methods of labour dispute resolution, analysis of current Ukrainian legislation in terms of organisational and legal support of labour arbitration, and also to the study of foreign countries’ experience in this area of legal regulation with a view to formulating practical recommendations for improving national legislation. The article provides a general description of the institution of labour arbitration, in particular, the main scientific approaches to the definition of the concept of ‘labour arbitration’ and its inherent features are outlined. The author establishes that the organisational and legal framework for the functioning of labour arbitration as one of the ways to resolve collective labour disputes is defined by the provisions of the Law of Ukraine ‘On the Procedure for Settlement of Collective Labour Disputes (Conflicts)’ and the Regulation on Labour Arbitration. The author determines that the procedure for labour arbitration includes the following stages: the parties to a collective labour dispute making a decision to establish labour arbitration and signing a joint agreement; formation of the labour arbitration panel; holding labour arbitration meetings to consider the labour dispute on the merits, collect, examine and analyse evidence; making and announcing a labour arbitration decision; informing the parties to a collective labour dispute and the NMCLU of the labour arbitration decision (by sending it). The article also examines the main provisions of the Draft Law of Ukraine ‘On Collective Labour Disputes’ No. 12034 on labour arbitration, and provides a comparative analysis of the said draft law and the current legislation of Ukraine on the principles of resolving collective labour disputes by labour arbitration. In order to study the positive experience, the author examined foreign practices of legal regulation of labour arbitration on the example of such countries as the United Kingdom, Canada, the United States of America, Sweden, and France. The author identifies the ways to improve Ukrainian legislation in the field of labour arbitration. It is stated that today, in foreign countries, labour arbitration is one of the most effective out-of-court methods of resolving labour disputes, both collective and individual. According to the author, the introduction of labour arbitration for resolving individual labour disputes has its advantages, in particular, unloading the judicial system, prompt resolution of a dispute, ensuring confidentiality in resolving a dispute, etc. The author concludes that with a view to improving national legislation regulating labour arbitration, it is advisable to introduce into the national legal system the experience of foreign countries, in particular, by ensuring voluntary participation of the parties in labour arbitration; establishing the mandatory nature of arbitral awards; defining at the legislative level the provisions on the legal status of a labour arbitrator and the procedures for conducting arbitration; conducting training and information campaigns for employers and employees on the possibilities.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,013 | 0,013 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,011 |
| Communication savante | 0,011 | 0,005 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,005 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».