Orientador: Angela Maria Carneiro Araujo / Dissertação (mestrado) - Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Instituto de Filosofia e Ciencias Humanas / Made available in DSpace on 2018-08-10T14:20:49Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Filgueiras_VitorAraujo_M.pdf: 1185068 bytes, checksum: 60453c1659217179a4b135ee0faebd41 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2008 / Resumo: A presente dissertação discute o aprofundamento da pulverização da organização sindical no Brasil após a promulgação da Constituição Federal de 1988. O objetivo principal do texto é apontar alguns elementos para a construção de uma explicação para tal pulverização ¿ que também chamarei de atomização ou fragmentação sindical, e significa o incremento do número de entidades com diminuição do quantum médio de trabalhadores associados e representados. Houve alterações e continuidades na legislação concernente à organização sindical na Constituição de 1988, concentradas no seu artigo 8o. Como já apontaram alguns autores, o novo quadro normativo estimulou o crescimento do número de sindicatos, especialmente pela implicação entre ¿monopólio de representação¿ e garantia de contribuições compulsórias para as entidades. Porém, a literatura subestimou as modificações introduzidas pela Carta Política, que deixaram abertas novas possibilidades de organização dos sindicatos. Creio que, além das questões legais, algumas mudanças no chamado ¿mundo do trabalho¿ e a permanência (ou radicalização) de aspectos da cultura sindical brasileira são fatores chaves para explicar o aprofundamento da fragmentação da organização sindical do país. Toda a discussão tem como base empírica os dados da Pesquisa Sindical do IBGE (2003), que abrange o universo dos sindicatos brasileiros existentes ao final do ano de 2001, sendo complementados por números fornecidos pelo Ministério do Trabalho e Emprego até o ano de 2005 / Abstract: This dissertation discusses the further fragmentation of the trade union organization in Brazil after the promulgation of the Federal Constitution of 1988. The main objective of the text is pointing some elements for the construction of a former explanation for such fragmentation - which I also call as union atomization, and means increase in the number of entities with decrease in the average quantum of members and workers represented. There were continuities and changes in legislation concerning trade union in the Constitution of 1988, concentrated in its Article 8. As pointed out by some authors, the new regulatory framework stimulated growth in the number of unions, especially by implication between "monopoly of representation" and guarantee of compulsory contributions for the entities. However, the literature underestimated the changes, which left open new possibilities for union organization. I believe that, in addition to legal issues, some changes in the so-called "world of labor" and permanence (or radical) of aspects of Brazilian culture union are key factors to explain the further fragmentation of the union organization in the country. The entire discussion is based on empirical data from the Trade Union Research of the IBGE (2003), which covers the universe of the Brazilian unions existing at the end of 2001, as supplemented by figures provided by the Ministry of Labour and Employment by the year of 2005 / Mestrado / Ciencia Politica / Mestre em Ciência Política

La représentation collective des salariés se caractérise par une pluralité de sources : internationales, européennes, étatiques et professionnelles. Leur identification permet d’établir une cartographie. Certaines ont pour objet de garantir les droits fondamentaux des salariés d’essence collective. D’autres participent plus directement à structurer le système de représentation collective des salariés. Cette cartographie renseigne ensuite sur leur importance respective à régir ce dernier domaine. Le développement du droit de l’Union européenne d’un côté et l’essor de la négociation collective de l’autre tendent ainsi à relativiser l’importance traditionnelle de la loi. De même, la promotion des normes négociées conduit corrélativement à un déclin des normes issues du pouvoir patronal. Leur articulation permet de comprendre les différents rapports qu’elles nouent entre elles. Elle met en évidence ce vers quoi est orientée l’articulation des sources de la représentation collective des salariés. Classiquement, cette articulation vise à garantir le droit des salariés à être représentés. De manière renouvelée, elle s’inscrit dans un processus de contractualisation et de décentralisation de la production normative. Le domaine de la représentation collective de salariés n’offre pas seulement une illustration particulière et vivante des mutations des sources du droit. Caractérisé par l’importance des normes de structure, il est un parfait observatoire pour appréhender le dynamisme de l’agencement des sources du droit et pour comprendre les mécanismes qui rendent possibles les déplacements d’une source à l’autre. / Workers’ collective representation is guaranteed by several sources of Law: international, European, statutes and collective bargaining. Pinpointing all of them enables a “map-making”. Some sources are to ensure workers’ collective fundamental rights. Some others aim to design workers representation. This « law-mapping » indicates each law’s respective importance. The increasing importance of the European Union law and of the collective bargaining in this matter alleviates statutes’ traditional role. In the same time the increasing role of collective bargaining diminishes management role in this respect. Studying the coordination of the different laws helps to understand their functions regarding one another. It makes possible to identify their purpose. Traditionally, such a coordination aims only to ensures workers’ representation. Now on, this coordination falls within the scope of a « contractualized » and decentralized normative production. Workers’ collective representation is not only a topic illustration of sources of laws mutation, it is also a field to observe the dynamic current of their coordination and interaction.

Cette recherche propose une analyse critique, à la lumière du droit français, de la négociation collective et, plus largement du partenariat social en Russie. Seront présentés tous les aspects du droit de la négociation collective dans une perspective comparative : la nature juridique de l'accord collectif et de la convention collective, leur place dans la hiérarchie des normes, les acteurs du partenariat social (syndicats, organisations patronales, Etat). Sont également examinés les principes applicables à la procédure de négociation collective. Dans ce cadre, est étudiée l'effectivité de la norme collective négociée à travers son évolution dans le temps et le contrôle de son application par les parties et le juge. Cette recherche fait ressortir les défectuosités du droit russe. La qualité de source du droit n'a été reconnue à la norme collective négociée que récemment. Sa nature juridique et sa place dans la hiérarchie des normes restent ambiguës. Les acteurs de la négociation collective n'ont découvert ce procédé démocratique qu'après la chute de l'URSS. La faiblesse des acteurs rejaillit sur le contrôle de la norme collective négociée, imparfait à ce stade. Le manque d'indépendance et d'efficience de la justice sociale russe est un autre obstacle à l'effectivité de ce contrôle. La doctrine russe reste encore marquée par le dogme de l'autorité de l'acte de gouvernement hérité de l'époque soviétique. Pour mettre en lumière ces défectuosités du droit contemporain, l'histoire du droit français et du droit russe sont convoquées pour comprendre les dynamiques évolutives qui parfois ont été mises en perspective avec des recherches sociologiques et des données économiques. / This study proposes a critical analysis of collective bargaining, and, more generally, of the development of social partnership in post-Soviet Russia, from the perspective of French law. All aspects of collective bargaining are presented comparatively, including the legal nature of the collective agreement, its place in the hierarchy of norms, the actors of the social dialog such as trade unions, employers' unions, the Federal State or the subjects of the Russian Federation. The principles of collective bargaining procedure are also examined. Within this framework, the effectiveness of the negotiated social norm, as well as the control of its application by the parties involved and the court are presented in their evolutionary development. The study identifies multiple imperfections in Russian law where the negotiated social norm was only recently recognized as a source of law. Its legal nature and its place in the hierarchy of norms remain uncertain. The actors of collective bargaining have discovered this democratic procedure only after the Soviet Union's collapse. However, the actors' limited access to power impacts the control of the social norm. This control is thus flawed. Relative inefficiency of social justice in Russia is an important impediment to the effectiveness of this control. Russian researches are still being marked by the dogma of the authority of the governmental norm inherited from the Soviet period. In order to demonstrate these shortcomings of the present day Russian law in their dynamic the historical overview of the French and Russian systems of law is included, sometimes sociological research and economic data are used to support the argument.