International Labour Law Standards Concerning Collective Bargaining in Public Essential Services

Giuseppe Carabetta
{"title":"International Labour Law Standards Concerning Collective Bargaining in Public Essential Services","authors":"Giuseppe Carabetta","doi":"10.21153/DLR2014VOL19NO2ART434","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Labour standards adopted under the auspices of the ILO constitute the principal international influences on public sector collective bargaining; it is those standards that are the subject of this article. Focusing on the position of essential public sector employees, ILO principles concerning collective bargaining, dispute settlement and the right of workers to withdraw their services as part of bargaining are examined. Particular attention is devoted to the application of ILO standards to essential public sector employees and police officers; and the extent to which Australian law complies with these standards. The ILO supervisory bodies have acknowledged that restrictions on the general right of workers to collectively bargain and to strike can be justified in the case of essential public employees, but only on a minimal or proportional analysis. The ILO has also emphasised that any restrictions on the right to strike must be compensated by adequate, impartial and speedy conciliation and arbitration processes. It is shown, however, that with respect to essential public employees and police officers operating under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), Australian law falls short on both of these scores, with a resultant uncertainty regarding the right of these workers to bargain collectively.","PeriodicalId":43081,"journal":{"name":"Deakin Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-12-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Deakin Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21153/DLR2014VOL19NO2ART434","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Labour standards adopted under the auspices of the ILO constitute the principal international influences on public sector collective bargaining; it is those standards that are the subject of this article. Focusing on the position of essential public sector employees, ILO principles concerning collective bargaining, dispute settlement and the right of workers to withdraw their services as part of bargaining are examined. Particular attention is devoted to the application of ILO standards to essential public sector employees and police officers; and the extent to which Australian law complies with these standards. The ILO supervisory bodies have acknowledged that restrictions on the general right of workers to collectively bargain and to strike can be justified in the case of essential public employees, but only on a minimal or proportional analysis. The ILO has also emphasised that any restrictions on the right to strike must be compensated by adequate, impartial and speedy conciliation and arbitration processes. It is shown, however, that with respect to essential public employees and police officers operating under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), Australian law falls short on both of these scores, with a resultant uncertainty regarding the right of these workers to bargain collectively.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
关于公共基本服务集体谈判的国际劳动法标准
在劳工组织主持下通过的劳工标准构成了对公共部门集体谈判的主要国际影响;这些标准正是本文的主题。以公共部门基本雇员的地位为重点,审查了劳工组织关于集体谈判、解决争端和工人作为谈判一部分撤回其服务的权利的原则。特别注意将劳工组织的标准适用于公共部门的基本雇员和警察;以及澳大利亚法律在多大程度上符合这些标准。劳工组织的监督机构承认,对工人集体谈判和罢工的一般权利的限制在基本的公共雇员的情况下是合理的,但只有在最低限度的或比例的分析。国际劳工组织还强调,对罢工权利的任何限制都必须通过适当、公正和迅速的调解和仲裁程序加以补偿。然而,报告显示,对于根据《2009年公平工作法案》(联邦)运作的基本公职人员和警察,澳大利亚法律在这两方面都做得不够,因此,这些工人集体谈判的权利存在不确定性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Recommendations on the Optimal Constitutional Recognition of the First Nations in Australia Damages for Wrongful Fertilisation: Reliance on Policy Considerations ‘The Foundation of Choice of Law: Choice and Equality’ by Sagi Peari Dissonance in Global Financial Law The Peripatetic Nature of EU Corporate Tax Law
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1