O presente trabalho tem como objeto a análise dos poderes decisórios do relator nos recursos cíveis, à luz do art. 557 do CPC. Para atenuar a carga de trabalho dos tribunais, da qual resultaria, pelo menos a priori, agilização no trâmite dos recursos em geral e, de conseqüência, combate à morosidade da justiça, atribuiuse ao relator poderes para apreciar os recursos no âmbito dos tribunais, isto sem necessidade de submissão do feito ao órgão colegiado. De acordo com o ordenamento jurídico atualmente em vigor, o relator está autorizado a, unipessoalmente, decidir a admissibilidade e até mesmo sobre o mérito do recurso. Essa é a dicção do art. 557 do CPC, com a redação que lhe imprimiu a Lei n 9.756/98. A decisão proferida solitariamente pelo relator, nos casos previstos no art. 557 do CPC, sempre causou muita perplexidade na comunidade jurídica, sobretudo porque rompe com a consagrada tradição de julgamentos colegiados no âmbito dos tribunais. Entretanto, sempre pôde ela ser submetida à apreciação do colegiado através da interposição do recurso de agravo interno. O legislador ordinário, no entanto, caminha decididamente para a monocraticidade das decisões no âmbito dos tribunais. A Lei n 11.187/05 é manifestação clara dessa tendência, porquanto suprimiu o cabimento do agravo interno contra as decisões interlocutórias proferidas nos casos enumerados no parágrafo único do Art. 527 do CPC, consistentes nas hipóteses em que o relator converte o agravo de instrumento em retido, quando atribui efeito suspensivo ou defere, em antecipação de tutela, total ou parcialmente, a pretensão recursal. O estudo do Art. 557 do CPC aliado ao espírito das modificações implementadas pela Lei n 11.187/05 encarna a tendência de que o relator exerce os poderes que lhe foram concedidos pela lei e não que os exerce ad referendum do órgão colegiado que integra / This work aims to analyze the decision-making powers of the rapporteur in civil appeals in the light of art. 557 of the CPC. To alleviate the workload of the courts, which would result, at least in principle, speeding in the processing of resources in general and, in consequence, the slowness of justice fight, attributed to the rapporteur empowered to hear appeals in the courts, that without submission made to the national collegiate. In accordance with the laws currently in force, the Rapporteur is authorized, sole proprietorship, to decide the admissibility and even on the merits. This is the utterance of the art. 557 of the CPC, with wording that gave it to Law No. 9.756/98. The decision alone, by the rapporteur, as provided in Art. 557 of the CPC, always caused much perplexity in the legal community, especially because it breaks with the hallowed tradition of collegiate judgments in courts. However, it could always be submitted to the collegiate action was brought by the grievance procedure. The ordinary legislator, however, moves decisively to monocratic decisions in courts. Law No. 11.187/05 is clear manifestation of this trend, since deleted the relevancy of internal grievance against interlocutory decisions rendered in the cases listed in the paragraph of Article 527 of the CPC, consistent in situations where the rapporteur converts the wrong instrument in withheld, when you assign a suspensive effect or defers, in anticipation of trust, in whole or in part, the appellate claim. The study of Article 557 of the CPC coupled with the spirit of the changes implemented by Law No. 11.187/05 embodies the trend that the rapporteur shall exercise the powers granted to it by law and that has not ad referendum of the collegial body part

M.Cur. (Professional Nursing) / Grievance procedures form an important instrument by means of which nursing staff can make their grievances known to management, thereby effecting a solution to the problem. Therefore, the way in which grievances are handled form an integral part of the staff duties of a nursing service manager. The effective handling of grievances directly influences the satisfaction of nursing staff, as well as the quality of nursing, and thus productivity. Effective handling of grievances depends on the nursing service manager's knowledge of and abiU ty to utilise grievance procedures. This implies that the nursing service manager should be willing and able to investigate all grievances that she becomes aware of, in a consistent manner. She can only fulfil this responsibility if there is an existing grievance procedure in the hospital, and if this procedure is known to all nursing staff. Utilisation of this procedure only is possible when all staff have access to it. This is ensured by training, which will equip them with knowledge and skills in the execution of grieval1ce procedures. The purpose of this study is to determine whether grievances are being handled effectively by nursing service managers in selected hospitals. A descriptive, exploratory study was done within this context by means of a historical analysis of available literature, including newspaper reports, as well as by case study analyses and interviews with nursing service managers in the selected hospitals. A self-training programme regarding the management of grievances will be developed. Analysis of the data indicates that nursing service managers in the selected hospitals do not handle grievance procedures effectively During interviews the nursing service managers indicated that grievance procedures do indeed exist at the hospitals in the Pretoria Witwatersrand area. However, a degree of uncertainty exist. about the difference between grievance procedures and disciplinary procedures.

M.Phil. (Labour Law & Employment Relations) / The Department of Correctional Services (DCS) is a security-oriented institution and one of its constitutional mandates is to keep offenders in safe and humane conditions until they are lawfully released. Employment relations are fraught with inevitable conflict because where there is more than one human being it follows that it (conflict) will surface. Hence, conflict leads to grievances. This study was intended to achieve the following objectives: - to conduct a literature investigation on grievance handling procedures in the DCS -to conduct an empirical investigation into employees' perceptions of grievance handling procedures in the DCS -to formulate recommendations for guidelines for the use of management III improving grievance handling procedures in the DCS According to the DCS's annual report of 200412005, more than half of the grievances lodged (54.98%) during that time were not resolved. This should be cause for concern for any organisation, especially one like the DCS where each and every employee needs to be at his/her best in terms of commitment and the employer should in turn have the leverage of trusting them (employees) all. Through the research questionnaire, this study gave employees an opportunity to interact with the researcher with a view to providing some guidelines for improving grievance handling in the DCS. Similarly, the study provided the researcher with an opportunity to find out from the respondents what, in their view, needs to be done to improve grievance handling in the DCS…

South African labour laws have undergone tremendous amendments before and after independence. This paper focuses on the development after independence, therefore section 34 of the Constitution of 1996, provisions of the Labour Relations Act of 1995 and other laws which deal with labour matters and regulate the labour relations and disputes in the country will be considered. The labour laws in South Africa provide inter alia for the dispute resolution mechanisms, the manner on which disputes should be handled by different organs which are empowered to do so. My focus will be to see how alternative disputes resolution processes of conciliation and arbitration in the Eastern Cape Province aim to transform the South African and global labour market by promoting an integrated simple, quick but efficient and inexpensive dispute settlement services in order to reduce the back log of cases, maintain labour peace, promote democracy at workplace with the view of advancing economic and social justice.

During the past twenty years, extensive research has been conducted concerning the judgmental processes of labor arbitrators. Previous research, sometimes referred to as policy capturing, attempted to identify the criteria or standards used by arbitrators to support their decisions. Much of the research was qualitative. Due to the categorical nature of the dependent variables, log-linear models such as logit regression have been used to examine decisional relationships in more recent studies. The decision cues used by arbitrators in 249 published alcohol- and drug-related arbitration cases were examined. The justifications for arbitrators' decisions were fitted into Carroll Daugherty's "seven tests" of just cause. The dominant cues were proof of misconduct, the appropriateness of the penalty, and the business necessity of management's action. Foreknowledge of the rule by the grievant and the consequences of a violation, equal treatment of the grievant, and an appropriate investigation by management were also important decision cues. In general, grievants in alcohol and drug arbitration cases fared as well as grievants in any other disciplinary arbitrations. However, when the cases were analyzed based on the legal status of the drug, illicit drug users were at a considerable disadvantage.

The purpose of this study was to examine the effectiveness of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 on the federal civil service through the establishment of the Merit Systems Protection Board. The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 was designed to correct many of the abuses which existed under the Civil Service Commission related to appeals procedures and inefficiency within the federal government. The majority of data collected for this study were obtained from the Dallas field office of the Merit Systems Protection Board, which covers approximately 275,000 federal employees in a five-state area. Additional data, related to all of the regional field offices of the Merit Systems Protection Board, were obtained from Washington, D.C. Two research tools were used to collect data from the Dallas field office: a questionnaire and a personal interview. Three hypotheses were examined. Hypothesis I stated that the creation of the Merit Systems Protection Board has not given presiding officials any additional authority to handle or decide adverse action cases brought within their jurisdiction. Hypothesis II stated that the length of time needed to process adverse action cases has not decreased since the creation of the Merit Systems Protection Board. Hypothesis III stated that the creation of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 has made no difference in the number of adverse action cases brought by federal employees against federal agencies.

Made available in DSpace on 2017-06-01T18:18:10Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 dissertacao_rasalina_freitas.pdf: 2597780 bytes, checksum: 1b4a2384c13558ba973a890d3c7eed81 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2010-09-22 / This work aims to analyze the decision-making powers of the rapporteur in civil appeals in the light of art. 557 of the CPC. To alleviate the workload of the courts, which would result, at least in principle, speeding in the processing of resources in general and, in consequence, the slowness of justice fight, attributed to the rapporteur empowered to hear appeals in the courts, that without submission made to the national collegiate. In accordance with the laws currently in force, the Rapporteur is authorized, sole proprietorship, to decide the admissibility and even on the merits. This is the utterance of the art. 557 of the CPC, with wording that gave it to Law No. 9.756/98. The decision alone, by the rapporteur, as provided in Art. 557 of the CPC, always caused much perplexity in the legal community, especially because it breaks with the hallowed tradition of collegiate judgments in courts. However, it could always be submitted to the collegiate action was brought by the grievance procedure. The ordinary legislator, however, moves decisively to monocratic decisions in courts. Law No. 11.187/05 is clear manifestation of this trend, since deleted the relevancy of internal grievance against interlocutory decisions rendered in the cases listed in the paragraph of Article 527 of the CPC, consistent in situations where the rapporteur converts the wrong instrument in withheld, when you assign a suspensive effect or defers, in anticipation of trust, in whole or in part, the appellate claim. The study of Article 557 of the CPC coupled with the spirit of the changes implemented by Law No. 11.187/05 embodies the trend that the rapporteur shall exercise the powers granted to it by law and that has not ad referendum of the collegial body part / O presente trabalho tem como objeto a análise dos poderes decisórios do relator nos recursos cíveis, à luz do art. 557 do CPC. Para atenuar a carga de trabalho dos tribunais, da qual resultaria, pelo menos a priori, agilização no trâmite dos recursos em geral e, de conseqüência, combate à morosidade da justiça, atribuiuse ao relator poderes para apreciar os recursos no âmbito dos tribunais, isto sem necessidade de submissão do feito ao órgão colegiado. De acordo com o ordenamento jurídico atualmente em vigor, o relator está autorizado a, unipessoalmente, decidir a admissibilidade e até mesmo sobre o mérito do recurso. Essa é a dicção do art. 557 do CPC, com a redação que lhe imprimiu a Lei nº 9.756/98. A decisão proferida solitariamente pelo relator, nos casos previstos no art. 557 do CPC, sempre causou muita perplexidade na comunidade jurídica, sobretudo porque rompe com a consagrada tradição de julgamentos colegiados no âmbito dos tribunais. Entretanto, sempre pôde ela ser submetida à apreciação do colegiado através da interposição do recurso de agravo interno. O legislador ordinário, no entanto, caminha decididamente para a monocraticidade das decisões no âmbito dos tribunais. A Lei nº 11.187/05 é manifestação clara dessa tendência, porquanto suprimiu o cabimento do agravo interno contra as decisões interlocutórias proferidas nos casos enumerados no parágrafo único do Art. 527 do CPC, consistentes nas hipóteses em que o relator converte o agravo de instrumento em retido, quando atribui efeito suspensivo ou defere, em antecipação de tutela, total ou parcialmente, a pretensão recursal. O estudo do Art. 557 do CPC aliado ao espírito das modificações implementadas pela Lei nº 11.187/05 encarna a tendência de que o relator exerce os poderes que lhe foram concedidos pela lei e não que os exerce ad referendum do órgão colegiado que integra

This item contains the agenda, minutes, and attachments for the Faculty Senate meeting on this date. There may be additional materials from the meeting available at the Faculty Center.

Problématique : Les effets de la constitutionnalisation du droit du travail sur le contrôle arbitral du pouvoir de réglementation de l’employeur. La problématique de notre projet de recherche consiste à évaluer les effets du phénomène de la constitutionnalisation du droit du travail sur le pouvoir de l’employeur d’établir de la réglementation d’entreprise relative au travail, lequel pouvoir est une manifestation concrète de ses droits de direction. Notre projet de recherche, qui se limite au contexte syndiqué, met donc en relation deux grandes dimensions lesquelles sont le pouvoir de réglementation de l’employeur et le phénomène de la constitutionnalisation du droit du travail. Mentionnons que notre projet de recherche s’attarde aux limites, se trouvant tant dans la législation que dans la convention collective, permettant l’encadrement du pouvoir de réglementation de l’employeur. Concernant le phénomène de la constitutionnalisation du droit du travail, notre projet de recherche s’attarde tant à ses fondements qu’à ses effets sur le pouvoir de réglementation de l’employeur, ces derniers effets découlant principalement de la décision Parry Sound, laquelle est à l’effet que tous les droits et obligations prévus dans les lois sont contenus implicitement dans chaque convention collective, quelles que soient les intentions des parties contractantes. Ainsi, notre projet de recherche vise à démontrer empiriquement, en observant la jurisprudence arbitrale, dans quelle mesure le phénomène de la constitutionnalisation du droit du travail, en contexte syndiqué, modifie l’encadrement du pouvoir de réglementation de l’employeur puisque ce dernier doit dorénavant composer avec des normes étatiques fondamentales qu’il n’a ni négociées, ni déterminées. Mentionnons que le concept central de notre recherche se trouve à être le contrôle arbitral du pouvoir de réglementation de l’employeur relativement à la réglementation d’entreprise susceptible de faire intervenir les dispositions 1, 3, 4 et 5 de la Charte des droits et libertés de la personne et qu’il vise la classification dudit contrôle arbitral en deux grandes logiques : la logique I préalablement à la décision Parry Sound et la logique II postérieurement à cette même décision. Ainsi, notre hypothèse dominante est à l’effet qu’en matière de contrôle arbitral du pouvoir de réglementation de l’employeur, deux logiques existent et que dans une logique II, le contrôle arbitral est modifié en ce que les arbitres, situent au sommet de la hiérarchie des aspects à évaluer, la conformité de la réglementation d’entreprise aux dispositions de la Charte susmentionnées. / Issue : The effects of the « constitutionalization » of labor law on the arbitral review of employers’ regulatory power. Our research consists in evaluating the effects of the « constitutionalization » of labor law on employers’ regulatory power to establish corporate regulation related to work. Our research is limited to the unionized workplace and brings together two concepts: employers’ regulatory power which comes from their management rights and the « constitutionalization » of labor law. Our research concerns mainly the boundaries, both statutory and contractual, to employers’ regulatory power, which boundaries offer a legal framework to the application of said power. With regard to the « constitutionalization » of labor law, our research presents both its substance and effects on employers’ regulatory power. These effects are mainly consequences of the Supreme Court’s decision in the Parry Sound case, stating that every collective agreement benefits from an implicit content including all human rights and employment-related legislation. Thus, our research aims to demonstrate, while observing the arbitral jurisprudence, the extent to which the « constitutinalization » of labor law, in unionized workplaces, can modify the boundaries of employers’ regulatory power since they must now compose with fundamental standards that they have neither negotiated nor established. The central concept of our research is the arbitral review of employers’ regulatory power related to corporate regulation, wherein provisions 1, 3, 4 and 5 of the Charte des droits et libertés de la personne are likely to be found applicable. More specifically, our research aims to classify said arbitral review into two different logics: Logic 1 before Parry Sound and Logic 2 after Parry Sound. Therefore, our main hypothesis is that two logics exist when we refer to the arbitral review of employers’ regulatory power and that, when applying Logic II, the arbitral review is modified since the arbitrators tend to prioritize the compliance of the corporate regulation with the above-mentioned provisions of the Charte des droits et libertés de la personne.

This item contains the agenda, minutes, and attachments for the Faculty Senate meeting on this date. There may be additional materials from the meeting available at the Faculty Center.