Labour arbitration in Ukraine: current state of legal regulation and prospects for development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".