International experience of compensation for moral damage in labour relations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The mechanism of compensation for moral damage to employees has existed in most developed states for many decades, which determines the relevance of its research in view of the insufficient regulation of this institution in Ukraine. Therefore, the purpose of the study was to analyse the features of compensation for moral damage in labour disputes in some countries of the world (France, Spain, Canada, Australia) with the aim of borrowing positive experience with the possibility of its further implementation into Ukrainian legislation. It has been established that there are no restrictions on the grounds for compensation for non-pecuniary damage in France – any material and moral damage is compensable if it is a direct and immediate consequence of the tortious act. French labour law strictly prohibits psychological pressure within the company; employers are obliged to take all necessary measures to prevent such situations. In addition, employers in this country also have a general duty to ensure the health and safety of their workers. It has been determined that compensation for moral damage is also provided for in Spanish labour law, but not for all offences in this area. To determine the amount of moral damage that is subject to compensation, the Law on Labour Infringements and Penalties (LISOS) is applied, which sets its minimum and maximum amount. Workers in Canada can claim compensation for moral damage if it has been caused as a result of wrongful dismissal, harassment, and discrimination. Simultaneously, the court considers the deceitful conduct of the previous employer following termination when assessing the level of compensation. It has been substantiated that the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act is the main legal instrument regulating the procedure for compensation for moral damage to an employee in Australia. According to this Law, psychological injury is subject to compensation only if it occurred as a result of work or during work; the latter must be a significant, essential, or main factor that caused the injury. The results presented in the paper can be used by researchers and legal practitioners in conducting further research on this topic, and by the legislator in the process of improving the mechanism of compensation for moral damage to employees in Ukraine
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".