日本解雇的法律规制

Kenji Arita
{"title":"日本解雇的法律规制","authors":"Kenji Arita","doi":"10.1080/09615768.2022.2101350","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In Japan dismissals are regulated by the Article 16 of the Labour Contracts Act (LCA) enacted in 2007 which stipulated the established case law rule. It provides that ‘if a dismissal lacks objectively reasonable grounds and is not considered to be appropriate in general societal terms, it is treated as an abuse of rights and is invalid’. Under this doctrine of abusive dismissal, the effect of abusive dismissal is to makes the abusive dismissal invalid and then the courts deliver a declaratory judgment confirming the status of the dismissed worker as the worker of the employer and order of backpay. This remedial rule has a deterrent effect on arbitrary dismissals, and is the most successful aspect of Japanese unfair dismissal law. There is, however, a fatal defect. The Japanese unfair dismissal law does not have effective procedures to resolve dismissal disputes that are prompt, low cost and easy to use. The most necessary thing is to build the effective procedure to resolve dismissal disputes for all the dismissed workers. If this reform is realised, it will provide much more dismissed workers than before with the effective remedies for abusive dismissals and further a deterrent effect of the Article 16 of the LCA on arbitrary dismissals.","PeriodicalId":88025,"journal":{"name":"King's law journal : KLJ","volume":"27 1","pages":"228 - 247"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Legal Regulation of Dismissal in Japan\",\"authors\":\"Kenji Arita\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/09615768.2022.2101350\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In Japan dismissals are regulated by the Article 16 of the Labour Contracts Act (LCA) enacted in 2007 which stipulated the established case law rule. It provides that ‘if a dismissal lacks objectively reasonable grounds and is not considered to be appropriate in general societal terms, it is treated as an abuse of rights and is invalid’. Under this doctrine of abusive dismissal, the effect of abusive dismissal is to makes the abusive dismissal invalid and then the courts deliver a declaratory judgment confirming the status of the dismissed worker as the worker of the employer and order of backpay. This remedial rule has a deterrent effect on arbitrary dismissals, and is the most successful aspect of Japanese unfair dismissal law. There is, however, a fatal defect. The Japanese unfair dismissal law does not have effective procedures to resolve dismissal disputes that are prompt, low cost and easy to use. The most necessary thing is to build the effective procedure to resolve dismissal disputes for all the dismissed workers. If this reform is realised, it will provide much more dismissed workers than before with the effective remedies for abusive dismissals and further a deterrent effect of the Article 16 of the LCA on arbitrary dismissals.\",\"PeriodicalId\":88025,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"King's law journal : KLJ\",\"volume\":\"27 1\",\"pages\":\"228 - 247\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-05-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"King's law journal : KLJ\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/09615768.2022.2101350\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"King's law journal : KLJ","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09615768.2022.2101350","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

在日本,解雇是由2007年颁布的《劳动合同法》(LCA)第16条规定的,其中规定了既定的判例法规则。它规定,“如果解雇缺乏客观上合理的理由,并且从一般社会角度来看不被认为是适当的,则将被视为滥用权利,无效”。在这种虐待性解雇原则下,虐待性解雇的效果是使虐待性解雇无效,然后法院作出宣告性判决,确认被解雇工人作为雇主的工人的地位,并命令支付欠薪。这一补救规则对任意解雇具有威慑作用,是日本不公平解雇法最成功的方面。然而,它有一个致命的缺陷。日本的《不正当解雇法》没有有效的程序来解决迅速、低成本和易于使用的解雇纠纷。最重要的是为所有被解雇工人建立有效的解决解雇纠纷的程序。如果实现这一改革,它将为比以前更多的被解雇工人提供有效的补救措施,以防止滥用解雇,并进一步发挥《劳工法》第16条关于任意解雇的威慑作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Legal Regulation of Dismissal in Japan
In Japan dismissals are regulated by the Article 16 of the Labour Contracts Act (LCA) enacted in 2007 which stipulated the established case law rule. It provides that ‘if a dismissal lacks objectively reasonable grounds and is not considered to be appropriate in general societal terms, it is treated as an abuse of rights and is invalid’. Under this doctrine of abusive dismissal, the effect of abusive dismissal is to makes the abusive dismissal invalid and then the courts deliver a declaratory judgment confirming the status of the dismissed worker as the worker of the employer and order of backpay. This remedial rule has a deterrent effect on arbitrary dismissals, and is the most successful aspect of Japanese unfair dismissal law. There is, however, a fatal defect. The Japanese unfair dismissal law does not have effective procedures to resolve dismissal disputes that are prompt, low cost and easy to use. The most necessary thing is to build the effective procedure to resolve dismissal disputes for all the dismissed workers. If this reform is realised, it will provide much more dismissed workers than before with the effective remedies for abusive dismissals and further a deterrent effect of the Article 16 of the LCA on arbitrary dismissals.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Unity in diversity? Constitutional identities, deliberative processes and a ‘Border Poll’ in Ireland The Nation vs. the People. The unconstitutionality of secessionist referendums under Belgian constitutional law The impact of federalism on secession referendums: comparing Scotland and Québec Assessing the Legitimacy of Referendums as a Vehicle for Constitutional Amendment: Reform and Abolition of the Legislative Councils in Queensland and New South Wales Referendums and representation in democratic constitution making: Lessons from the failed Chilean constitutional experiment
×
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