| 摘要: |
| “集体停工和群体性事件”高发是劳动争议法治化的重要议题，但我国集体劳动法所能提供的制度供给极为有限，仅《工会法》第27条“停工”规则与之直接相关。加之《工会法》第27条系原则性的程序性规则，“集体停工”高发之“实”难以通过虚化的“停工”规则在集体劳动法层面得以实体性解决，因而将“集体停工”所引发的劳动争议转化为个体劳动法层面的司法裁判之“实”，便成为现行制度条件下的现实选择。法院审理“集体停工”所引发的劳动争议，一方面需要明晰《工会法》第27条之“停工”并非罢工的同义词，“停工”规则更非对罢工行为的赋权条款，罢工行为在我国尚不享有责任豁免。另一方面针对最为常见的解雇争议，需根据劳动者“集体停工”的缘由，区分履行抗辩权之“停工”与违约性“停工”，结合具体事实情节判定劳动者停止工作与用人单位解雇的法律属性。 |
| 关键词: 停工罢工 集体劳动法 履行抗辩权 劳动争议 |
| DOI： |
| 分类号: |
| 基金项目: |
|
| The Legal Explanation and Solution of “Work stoppage”—From the Perspective of Collective Labor Law and Individual Labor Law |
|
Li Gan
|
|
|
| Abstract: |
| The high incidence of “collective work stoppage and mass disturbance” is an important issue in labor law． However， the institutional supply provided by Chinas collective labor law is extremely limited， only the rule of “work stoppage” in Article 27 of the Trade Union Law is directly related to it． Combined with the article 27 being anabstract procedural rule， it can hardly solve the “work stoppage” substantively at the level of collective labor law． Therefore， based on the current legal system， solving the labor disputes arising from “work stoppage” by judicial departments at the level of individual labor law becomes a realistic choice． To achieve this， it is necessary to clarify that the term of “work stoppage” in Article 27 of the Trade Union Law is not synonymous with a strike． Besides， the “work stoppage” rule is not an empowering provision for strikes， and strikes do not enjoy immunity from liability in China． On the other hand， according to the causes of collective work stoppage， it is necessary to distinguish between the “work stoppage” as a defence right of performance and the “work stoppage” as a breach of contract． The judges should determine the legal nature of “work stoppage” on the basis of specific facts． |
| Key words: Work Stoppage, Strike, Collective Labor Law, Defence Right of Performance, Labor Dispute |
