The focus of both academic and public debate on the expression of work-related conflict has long been focused on strikes. Substantial declines in collective disputes have been associated with more harmonious and less conflict-laden employment relations. This research deals with another, often forgotten form in which conflict is manifested, namely the settlement of individual conflicts through labour courts or employment tribunals. Its aim is to explore and explain differences in application rates to national judicial bodies both across countries and over time. Using a novel database on 23 European Union Member States, it is found that a substantial degree of variance exists; claim rates across Europe differ substantially, and countries have developed along different lines. The explosion of court applications is found to be exceptional, and stability or volatility is identified in the large bulk of EU Member States. In order to explain cross-sectional and time differences, the research draws on wide range of literature, develops a new procedural concept of conflict, and proposes a comparative neo-institutionalist framework accounting for both institutions and actors. The theoretical discussion elaborates three sets of arguments to predict claim incidence. First, it is argued that the existence of comprehensive collective industrial relations institutions, particularly employee workplace representation and collective agreements, tend to reduce the frequency of labour court claims. Second, the amount and complexity of employment regulation is argued to have an impact on the incidence of court applications. Finally, cyclical economic conditions and individual characteristics of the potential grievant are expected to predict the phenomenon. Empirical evidence is presented from a range of different data sources, such as national administrative data and large-scale surveys for three country case studies on France, Germany and the United Kingdom. Findings support that all three sets of explanations contribute to the explanation of the incidence of labour court claims. Moreover, data seem to confirm the need for an interdisciplinary approach drawing on different bodies of literature.

The purpose of this essay is to examine and explain how the Swedish mining court of Stora Kopparberget (the Great Copper Mountain) implemented its judicial legislation between 1641-1682. Questions are asked about which counts of indictments the court tried, which sentences they handed out, in what quantities and how these results looks in comparison with other contemporary courts. The index cards of the court judicial protocols are the primary source of information. The methods are those of quantity- and comparative analysis.The results show that theft of copper ore was the most common crime ransacked by the court. Other common crimes were (in order): sin of omission, transgression of work directions, fights, slander and disdain, trade of stolen ore, failing appearance in court etc.Fines were by far the most common sentence followed by shorter imprisonments, gauntlets, loss of right to mine possession, twig beating, loss of work, penal servitude, banishment, “wooden horse riding” and finally military transcription. Even though previous re-search, in the field of Swedish specialized courts, is almost non existent evidence confirms great similarities between the Stora Kopparberget mining court and Sala mining court. This essay will, hopefully, enrich our knowledge of specialized courts, of 17th century mining industry and society and let us reach a broader understanding of the working conditions of the mountain.

Orientador: José Dari Krein / Dissertação (mestrado) - Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Instituto de Economia / Made available in DSpace on 2018-08-24T21:56:15Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Mandl_AlexandreTortorella_M.pdf: 3763201 bytes, checksum: 4e31e5b602a8a413bbb9ab243f4e49cd (MD5) Previous issue date: 2014 / Resumo: O objetivo desta pesquisa de mestrado é a análise da judicialização das greves nos anos 2000, expondo as ações e reações institucionais da Justiça do Trabalho. Num cenário de alterações do mercado de trabalho durante os anos 2000, cerca de 30% das greves foram solucionadas pela Justiça do Trabalho. Quais os motivos que levaram à greve ser judicializada? Quais os instrumentos jurídicos utilizados? Como atuaram os atores do Poder Judiciário diante da judicialização da greve? Como o Poder Judiciário julgou as greves? Como podem ser avaliados os resultados decorrentes da judicialização das greves? As causas e efeitos da judicialização das greves são importantes instrumentos de análise para complementar a compreensão das alterações da estrutura do mercado de trabalho, bem como do sentido da regulação trabalhista, do poder normativo da Justiça do Trabalho e das ações sindicais. A presente hipótese assevera que não é porque há uma queda da taxa de judicialização dos dissídios coletivos que a Justiça do Trabalho está "menos presente" nas relações de trabalho. Pelo contrário, o desafio é compreender, com qual caráter, com qual conteúdo e com quais instrumentos que a Justiça do Trabalho (especificamente, o TST) está decidindo sobre o direito de greve, considerando as alterações decorrentes da EC nº 45/04, em especial pelo crescimento de ações de interditos proibitórios / Abstract: The objective of this master¿s thesis is to analyze the judicialization of workers¿ strikes in the 2000s, revealing the institutional actions and reactions of the Labor Courts. In a context of changes in the labor market during the 2000s, around 30% of the strikes were decided by the Labor Courts. What were the reasons that led the strikes to be judicialized? What were the legal instruments used? How did the actors in the Judiciary act in relation to the judicialization of the strikes? What did the Judiciary decide about the strikes? How can the results stemming from the judicialization of the strikes be evaluated? The causes and effects of the judicialization of the strikes are important analytical instruments to complement the comprehension of the changes in the labor market structure, as well as the direction of labor regulation, of the normative power of the Labor Courts and of the trade union activity. The hypothesis presented here is that, although there is a fall in the judicialization rates of the collective bargaining agreements, the Labor Courts are not "less prevalent" in labor relations. On the contrary, the challenge is to comprehend the characteristics, the content and the instruments that the Labor Courts (specifically the TST ¿ Supreme Labor Court) are using to make their decisions on the right to strike, taking into account the changes stemming from the Constitutional Amendment n.45/2004, especially the increase of prohibitory interdicts / Mestrado / Economia Social e do Trabalho / Mestre em Desenvolvimento Econômico

A study of silences: as a metaphysics of the law, juridification silences the text of the law in order to enable an allegorical reading of the law. This silencing of the legal text can only be avoided through a non-metaphysical archaeological reading. Similarly, the programme of comparative labour law is silent at its most pivotal points, leaving some concerns of the programme indeterminate and indeterminable. As context, the dominant discourses of the labour law systems of the Federal Republic of Germany (Tarifautonomie), Great Britain (collective laizzesfaire) and South Africa (fairness) are identified and the agents of the jurisprudence (the courts) are briefly outlined. The silence operating within the phenomenology of the labour judiciary and the concept of a 'court' is also examined. The study then proceeds to read, in an archaeological manner, the industrial action jurisprudence in Germany, Great Britain and South Africa, such readings again yielding silences within the discourse of the law. The silences occurring throughout (and the resulting normative breaches in the rationality of the legal discourse) are the prerequisites for juridification, a process in terms of which the metajuridical standard is imported into the legal normative system and thereby rendered part of the archival discourse of the law. / LL.D.

A study of silences: as a metaphysics of the law, juridification silences the text of the law in order to enable an allegorical reading of the law. This silencing of the legal text can only be avoided through a non-metaphysical archaeological reading. Similarly, the programme of comparative labour law is silent at its most pivotal points, leaving some concerns of the programme indeterminate and indeterminable. As context, the dominant discourses of the labour law systems of the Federal Republic of Germany (Tarifautonomie), Great Britain (collective laizzesfaire) and South Africa (fairness) are identified and the agents of the jurisprudence (the courts) are briefly outlined. The silence operating within the phenomenology of the labour judiciary and the concept of a 'court' is also examined. The study then proceeds to read, in an archaeological manner, the industrial action jurisprudence in Germany, Great Britain and South Africa, such readings again yielding silences within the discourse of the law. The silences occurring throughout (and the resulting normative breaches in the rationality of the legal discourse) are the prerequisites for juridification, a process in terms of which the metajuridical standard is imported into the legal normative system and thereby rendered part of the archival discourse of the law. / LL.D.

Several interesting findings emerged from this study. First, strong labour movements still failed to successfully bargain for employment protections due to resistance from employers to encroachments on their institutionalized managerial prerogatives. Second, governments favoured a policy of abstentionism and acquiescence to the collective-laissez-faire tradition until the critical juncture of the 1960s and 1970s. Third, the increasing power resources of trade unions and a deteriorating socio-economic climate created a window of opportunity for bold government action to improve industrial relations, albeit without the consent of employers, and at first, unions. Fourth, contrary to the liberalizing pressures one would expect to find in an archetypical free market economy, the UK has implemented far more statutory protections than deregulatory reforms. Fifth, in contrast to its traditional non-intervention in industrial relations and reputation for worker-protective regulations, Swedish governments have enacted numerous statutes, both restricting and freeing managerial prerogatives in the hiring and firing process. Sixth, statutory employment protections became an independent set of institutional power resources for unions in the long run, serving their organizational and representational interests in important ways. Seventh, unions and left parties consistently defended and advanced the policy preferences of their core constituencies in secure employment by privileging the job security of regular contracts. Eighth, employers and parties on the right of the political spectrum consistently opposed restrictions on the managerial capacity to hire and fire at will, especially for small businesses. Nineth, to increase flexibility without threatening the stability of regular contracts, reforms over the years had to foster atypical forms of work, creating a regulatory gap between permanent and temporary employment, particularly in Sweden. Tenth, differences exist between job security in the statute books and job security in action, particularly in the UK where this gap pervades all aspects of the unfair dismissal system. These findings suggest employment protection legislation has developed in ways far more complex, dynamic and contradictory than is commonly assumed by prominent theories of comparative political economy. / Dissertation / Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) / This thesis examines how and why employment protection legislation developed in the United Kingdom and Sweden in the ways that it did from its early beginnings to the present period. It hopes to offer answers to questions about the initial impetus for statutory regulation, the number, content and impact of significant legislative changes and the preferences of key stakeholders with material interests in the policymaking process. It does this by drawing on a variety of both primary and secondary source materials, including employment protection databases, parliamentary records and research publications. At the same time, it assesses the explanatory merit of dominant theories in the political economy literature by testing them against voluminous empirical evidence and provides a multi-factorial account to fill the gaps in the existing body of knowledge.