No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

[pt] Esta tese tem como objetivo desvendar a lógica da Reforma Trabalhista e Sindical em curso no Brasil, voltada para a flexibilização dos direitos do Trabalho. Nosso estudo se valeu de uma combinação de estratégias de pesquisa que incluem a definição do marco teórico de referência com base na teoria social como instrumental analítico privilegiado para análise do objeto; uma pesquisa documental para identificar o conjunto de medidas legais e propostas de mudanças na legislação do trabalho no período de 1995 a 2006 e a realização de entrevistas semi-estruturadas a representantes das entidades patronais e das centrais sindicais, para apreender o posicionamento dos trabalhadores e empregadores quanto à Reforma Trabalhista e Sindical. Na investigação, verificamos que a reforma incide sobre a proteção social do trabalhador no âmbito dos direitos individuais, coletivos e da justiça do trabalho e provoca a desconstrução da regulação social do trabalho com sérias implicações sociais e econômicas: no plano individual, o sistema, além de flexibilizar a jornada, os contratos e rebaixar salários, restringe os direitos e a proteção social dos trabalhadores; no plano coletivo, o modelo proposto é mais um instrumento de conciliação do que de defesa dos trabalhadores contra as empresas e, no plano da Justiça do Trabalho, dificultam-se as ações dos trabalhadores e reduz-se a ação do Estado. A análise revela que as modificações na legislação implicam perdas de direitos e retrocesso das conquistas históricas dos trabalhadores. O corolário é a legitimação das formas de precarização do emprego, o que reforça a fuga de direitos e a troca do trabalho protegido pelo trabalho desprotegido. / [en] This paper aims to find out the logic of the labor and syndicate reformation going on in Brazil, focusing on the flexibilization of the labor`s rights. Our research combined strategies which includes the definition of the theoretical mark of reference based on the social theory as an analytic instrument special for the analysis of the object; a documental research to identify the set of legal acts and proposals to change the labor`s legislation in the period from 1995 to 2006; and the realization of interviews halfstructured to representatives of the employers` entities and to the head syndicates, in order to apprehend where both employers and employees stand regarding the labor and syndicate reformation. Within the investigation we verified that the reformation goes against the social protection of the worker in terms of individual and collective rights and in terms of the labor`s justice, and provokes the deconstruction of the social regulation of labor, causing serious economical and social implications: In the individual field, the system, besides making working hours and the contracts flexible and diminishing the wages, restricts the workers` social rights and protection; In the collective field, the model proposed is more likely a way of reconciliation than a way of defense for the workers against the companies and, in the Labor`s Justice field, it makes workers` actions difficult and diminishes the State`s action. The analysis reveals that the changes in the legislation imply losses of rights and the retreat of the workers` historical conquests. The corollary is the legitimacy of the ways that turn employment precarious, which reinforce the evasion of rights and the shifting from protected labor to non-protected labor.

The purpose of this treatise is to develop a spirit of understanding affirmative action as a strategy that gives South Africa a human face of equality. The strategic development of affirmative action as part of Employment Equity Act is based on equality at workplace. This work takes note of the need to integrate human resource development for employment, productivity and education system that is based on formal education, prior knowledge education (RPL) and previous experience. The imbalances were designed to be of racial reflection therefore the redress process is racial in character but non-racial in content as the envisaged society is a non-racial society. The historical background of inequality and racial discrimination is noted in the environment of employment and on how other laws were enforcing the inequality. The arguments against affirmative action are debated and valid points of such arguments are noted as points of concern that must be considered in the process to attain equality. This work views affirmative action as a process that goes beyond employment relations and work as an instrument to change society by addressing social needs and services that have a reflection of inequality. Education is viewed as the out most important process to change the lives of people as affirmative action has a requirement of suitably qualified candidates to be affirmed. In South Africa problems of inequality were political designed but were enforced by various laws that were having material and psychological impact on the previously disadvantaged. The designated groups were divided into Africans, Indians and Coloureds, in Naidoo v Minister of Safety and Security this principle of defining designated racial groups was promoted in correction to the direction that was taken in Motala v University of Natal.Affirmative action is a legal process that addresses political designed problems. It is also a process that is exposed to abuse. Corrupt officials and managers appoint employees that do not qualify for posts on the bases of political affiliation or any other ground of discrimination. This is discussed with reference to the allegations of SADTU selling posts for principals, senior managers appointed in state co-operatives. The above mentioned tendencies are noted as part of negative indicators on the process that is meant to bring equality and non-racial society where all the citizens are given equal opportunities. This work views affirmative action as a strategy that is based on achieving a society that has a human face where race shall not be a point of reference.

Text in Afrikaans / Werknemers is benewens sekere hoogs uitsonderlike gevalle altyd voor ontslag op substantiewe - en prosessuele billikheid geregtig, hetsy in 'n individuele ofkollektiewe verband. Prosessuele billikheid in besonder het 'n inherente waarde, o.a. omdat die uiteinde van 'n proses nie voorspel kan word nie. Die werkgewer word ook daardeur in staat gestel om die feite te bekom, en arbeidsvrede word daardeur gehandhaaf. Van verdere belang vir prosessuele billikheid is die nakoming van eie of ooreengekome prosedures, die beskikbaarstelling van genoegsame inligting, voorafkennisgewing en bona fide optrede deur die werkgewer. Die primere remedie in die geval van 'n onbillike ontslag is herindiensstelling, alhoewel herindiensstelling nie in die geval van 'n prosessuele onbillike ontslag beveel behoort te word nie. Die riglyne soos in die verlede deur die howe en arbiters ontwikkel is grootliks in die Konsepwet op Arbeids= verhoudinge, soos bevestig in die Wet op Arbeidsverhoudinge, 1995, gekodifiseer. / Prior to dismissal employees are always entitled to substantive - and procedural fairness, be it in an individual or a collective context, subject to highly exceptional circumstances. Procedural fairness in particular has an inherent value, inter alia because the outcome of a process cannot be predicted. The employer also thereby establishes the facts and by conducting a process, labour peace is promoted. Also of importance for procedural fairness is adherance to own or agreed procedures, providing the employee with sufficient information, prior notification and bona fide conduct by the employer. The primary remedy in the case of an unfair dismissal is reinstatement, though reinstatement should not follow in the case of a dismissal which is (only) procedurally unfair. The guidelines as developed by the courts and arbitrators have largely been codified in the Draft Labour Relations Bill, as subsequently confirmed in the Labour Relations Act, 1995. / Mercentile Law / LL. M.

Mercantile Law / LL. M. (Commercial Law)

Jurisdiction is the power or competence of a Court to hear and determine an issue between parties, as well as the power to compel the parties to give effect to a judgment. The approach of a CCMA commissioner faced with a jurisdictional challenge is therefore an important issue that requires legal certainty. Unfortunately, our case law has not been uniform with regard to the various issues surrounding jurisdiction of the CCMA, for example: what facts need to be established in order for the CCMA to have jurisdiction and at what stage of the process should a commissioner deal with the issue of jurisdiction. The purpose of this treatise is to consider the various approaches of our courts to the issue of the jurisdiction of the CCMA and to determine what approach is practically best suited for CCMA commissioners when the issue of jurisdiction is in dispute. The research methodology is based on the various approaches of our courts to the jurisdiction of the CCMA as set out in Bombardier Transportation v Mtiya [2010] 8 BLLR 840 (LC). The more practical “third” approach as proposed by van Niekerk J, in Bombardier Transportation v Mtiya [2010] 8 BLLR 840 (LC), has been favoured by the Labour Court and the CCMA following the judgment. The correct approach of a commissioner when dealing with specific jurisdictional facts such as condonation and the jurisdiction of a bargaining council will further be considered. However, the predicament that commissioners face is that the Labour Appeal Court’s approach to jurisdiction is in conflict with that of the Labour Court’s approach. In conclusion, it is submitted that the Labour Appeal Court must pronounce on the issue of jurisdiction, taking into consideration the approach of the Labour Court as to create certainty regarding the correct approach of a commissioner when faced with a jurisdictional challenge.

O presente estudo tem como objeto o Poder Normativo da Justiça do Trabalho, enquanto processo jurisdicional de formação de norma. Objetiva enfrentar as diretrizes traçadas pela Emenda Constitucional n. 45/2004, que desfigurou a sua natureza e impôs obstáculos para o acesso à justiça nas hipóteses dos dissídios coletivos de natureza econômica. Traça inicialmente um panorama das alternativas de solução dos conflitos e a estrutura dogmática desse modelo de procedimento para, em seguida, demonstrar a sua importância no contexto da Teoria Geral do Processo. A partir de uma nova pauta hermenêutica e se valendo de uma bibliografia atualizada e multidisciplinar enfrenta o conteúdo da referida emenda e defende que o seu enunciado fere vários Princípios Constitucionais Processuais, especialmente o Princípio da Inafastabilidade da Jurisdição. Como convém a um estudo acadêmico, apresenta as evidências empíricas e analíticas produzidas pela Teoria Social Crítica, a fim de demonstrar que citada emenda constitucional foi apresentada no momento em que o mundo vive uma crise sistêmica desencadeada pelo geopolítica ultraliberal, com profundas implicações no mundo do trabalho; nas reconhecidas crises do sindicalismo contemporâneo e seus impactos negativos para as negociações coletivas e as greves. Deixa transparecer que a sua adoção está conectada também com as propostas disseminadas pelo neocorporativismo que teima em afastar o Estado das resoluções desses mesmos conflitos e, em particular, a Justiça do Trabalho de exercitar esse mesmo poder normativo. Com base em tais argumentos, conclui fazendo a defesa do Poder Normativo e propõe o reconhecimento da inconstitucionalidade da referida emenda constitucional / This study deals with the Labor Justices Normative Power, as a jurisdictional process of norm formation. The objective is to question the directions traced by the Constitutional Amendment n. 45/2004, which disfigured its nature and imposed obstacles to the access to justice in the cases of economic collective disagreements dissidios. Firstly, it traces a panorama of conflict solution alternatives, as well as the dogmatic structure of this procedure model to demonstrate its importance in the context of the General Theory of the Process. From a new hermeneutic agenda and using an updated and multidisciplinary bibliography, the study questions the content of the referred amendment and it defends that its content goes against a number of Procedural Constitutional Principles, especially the principle of Jurisdiction Inafastabilit. As it is usual in an academic study, it presents the empirical and analytical evidence produced by Critical Social Theory studies, to demonstrate that the cited constitutional amendment was presented in a moment when the world is living a systemic crisis, caused by ultraliberal geopolitics, with deep implications in the world of labor; the recognized crises of contemporary unions and their negative impact in collective negotiations and strikes. It also suggests that its adoption is connected with the proposals disseminated by neocorporativism, which insists in the aversion of the State from the resolutions of these same conflicts and, in particular, it prevents the Labor Justice from exercising this normative power. Based on such arguments, the study concludes by defending the Normative Power and it proposes the recognition of the unconstitutionality of the referred constitutional amendment