本文選題：勞動(dòng)法領(lǐng)域 + 意思自治��； 參考：《吉林大學(xué)》2016年碩士論文

【摘要】：意思自治原則曾被早期勞動(dòng)法廣泛適用�，F(xiàn)代勞動(dòng)法兼具公法和私法屬性,意思自治與國(guó)家管制并存,在現(xiàn)有勞動(dòng)法律未明確規(guī)定意思自治原則適用條件和范圍的前提下,在多大程度上尊重用人單位與勞動(dòng)者的意思自治是個(gè)有爭(zhēng)議的問(wèn)題。人民法院在審理勞動(dòng)爭(zhēng)議案件的過(guò)程中無(wú)可避免地要對(duì)用人單位與勞動(dòng)者簽訂的各種協(xié)議的效力進(jìn)行評(píng)判,現(xiàn)有勞動(dòng)法律法規(guī)以大量“不得”、“應(yīng)當(dāng)”等強(qiáng)制性用語(yǔ)約束用人單位與勞動(dòng)者的“自治”行為,對(duì)于用人單位與勞動(dòng)者可自由協(xié)商的事項(xiàng)和內(nèi)容卻未予以概括和明確,使各地勞動(dòng)仲裁機(jī)構(gòu)和法院在審查協(xié)議效力時(shí)缺乏全國(guó)性的原則標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。各地對(duì)于同種協(xié)議的效力認(rèn)定存在不同的做法,用人單位和勞動(dòng)者在不同地域遇到的裁判結(jié)果可能截然相反,這種現(xiàn)象的存在會(huì)損害司法權(quán)威,也妨礙勞動(dòng)市場(chǎng)的良性運(yùn)轉(zhuǎn)�！秳趧�(dòng)合同法》實(shí)施八年以來(lái),經(jīng)濟(jì)環(huán)境和用工環(huán)境已經(jīng)發(fā)生了極大的變化。隨著全國(guó)范圍內(nèi)各地域經(jīng)濟(jì)總體發(fā)展水平的提高和人口老齡化的提前到來(lái),原來(lái)供大于求的勞動(dòng)力市場(chǎng)已經(jīng)逐漸向供需平衡轉(zhuǎn)變,對(duì)外來(lái)工需求較大的某些經(jīng)濟(jì)發(fā)達(dá)地區(qū)甚至經(jīng)常出現(xiàn)“用工荒”的現(xiàn)象,勞動(dòng)者享有比原先更多的擇業(yè)自由。經(jīng)過(guò)《勞動(dòng)合同法》出臺(tái)之初幾年勞動(dòng)爭(zhēng)議訴訟爆炸的洗禮,再加上多年來(lái)的法治建設(shè)和法制宣傳取得的卓越成果,勞動(dòng)者的維權(quán)能力也得到了普遍的提高。考慮到這些背景因素的出現(xiàn),國(guó)家在勞動(dòng)關(guān)系領(lǐng)域干預(yù)的范圍和程度也有必要隨之調(diào)整。任何法律都有其保護(hù)的利益和限制權(quán)利行使的邊界,有必要確定意思自治原則在勞動(dòng)法領(lǐng)域的適用范圍。在勞動(dòng)爭(zhēng)議案件中要避免破壞用人單位與勞動(dòng)者的契約自由,就必須對(duì)法律條文進(jìn)行準(zhǔn)確解讀,把握立法原意,將法律規(guī)定、雙方協(xié)議涉及的事項(xiàng)、利益的分配三者結(jié)合起來(lái)分析。筆者以自己審判實(shí)踐中的眾多典型案例來(lái)闡釋哪些情形的協(xié)議僅因違反管理性強(qiáng)制性規(guī)定而有效,哪些情形的協(xié)議會(huì)因違反效力性強(qiáng)制性規(guī)定而無(wú)效,哪些情形的協(xié)議因未損害國(guó)家利益、社會(huì)公共利益、勞動(dòng)者基本權(quán)益和未違反公序良俗而有效,以此來(lái)說(shuō)明意思自治原則在勞動(dòng)法領(lǐng)域的廣泛適用。通過(guò)對(duì)大量相關(guān)案例進(jìn)行分析,筆者認(rèn)為,從勞動(dòng)法律保護(hù)的利益和勞動(dòng)爭(zhēng)議處理的事項(xiàng)范圍考慮,對(duì)于用人單位與勞動(dòng)者“自治”協(xié)議的有效情形,可明確規(guī)定:用人單位與勞動(dòng)者以訂立、履行、終止或解除勞動(dòng)合同為目的,基于雙方真實(shí)意思表示達(dá)成的未損害國(guó)家利益、社會(huì)公共利益、勞動(dòng)者基本權(quán)益和未違反公序良俗的協(xié)議有效。
[Abstract]:The principle of will autonomy was widely applied in early labor laws. The modern labor law has the attributes of public law and private law, and the autonomy of will coexists with the control of the state. Under the premise that the principle of autonomy of will is not clearly stipulated in the existing labor law, The degree of respect for the autonomy of employers and workers is a controversial issue. In the process of handling labor dispute cases, the people's courts inevitably have to judge the effectiveness of various agreements signed between the employing units and the laborer, and the existing labor laws and regulations are "not allowed" in a large number of cases. Compulsory terms such as "shall" restrict the act of "autonomy" between the employer and the laborer, but the matters and contents of which the employer and the laborer can freely negotiate have not been summarized and made clear. Causes the local labor arbitration institution and the court to examine the agreement validity lacks the national principle standard. There are different practices in different places regarding the validity of the same agreement. The judicial results encountered by employers and workers in different regions may be quite the opposite, and the existence of this phenomenon will undermine the judicial authority. It also hinders the healthy operation of the labor market. Since the implementation of the Labor contract Law eight years ago, the economic environment and the employment environment have undergone great changes. With the improvement of the overall level of economic development in various regions throughout the country and the early arrival of an aging population, the labor market, which was oversupplied and oversupplied, has gradually shifted to a balance between supply and demand. In some economically developed areas where the demand for foreign workers is greater, the phenomenon of "shortage of employment" often occurs, and workers enjoy more freedom to choose their jobs than before. After the baptism of labor dispute litigation explosion in the early years of the "Labor contract Law", plus the remarkable achievements in the construction of the rule of law and the legal propaganda over the years, the workers' ability to safeguard their rights has also been generally improved. Considering the emergence of these background factors, the scope and extent of state intervention in the field of labor relations should be adjusted accordingly. Any law has its protected interests and limits on the exercise of rights. It is necessary to determine the scope of application of the principle of autonomy of will in the field of labor law. In order to avoid undermining the freedom of contract between the employer and the laborer in labor dispute cases, we must accurately interpret the legal provisions, grasp the legislative intent, and stipulate the law and the matters involved in the agreement between the two sides. The distribution of benefits is combined with analysis. The author uses many typical cases in his own trial practice to explain which cases the agreement is valid only because of the violation of the mandatory regulations of management, and which cases of the agreement will be invalid because of the breach of the mandatory provisions of validity. In which cases the agreement is effective because it does not harm the national interest, the social public interest, the basic rights and interests of the laborer, and does not violate the public order and good custom, so as to explain the extensive application of the principle of autonomy of will in the field of labor law. Through the analysis of a large number of relevant cases, the author believes that considering the interests of labor law protection and the scope of labor dispute settlement, the effective situation of the agreement between employer and laborer is "autonomy". It may be clearly stipulated that the employer and the laborer, for the purpose of concluding, fulfilling, terminating or terminating a labor contract, have reached without prejudice to the interests of the state and the public interest on the basis of the expression of the true will of both parties, The basic rights and interests of the laborer and the agreement which does not violate the public order and good custom are valid.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：吉林大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2016
【分類號(hào)】：D922.52

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 劉敏,潘醒;意思自治原則的經(jīng)濟(jì)分析[J];甘肅政法學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2005年04期

2 劉萍;意思自治原則在中國(guó)的適用問(wèn)題[J];理論導(dǎo)刊;2000年11期

3 劉秀芳,胡蓉;從意思自治原則的發(fā)展歷程看自由和秩序的互動(dòng)關(guān)系[J];當(dāng)代法學(xué);2002年11期

4 汪粼;;淺論意思自治原則及其運(yùn)用[J];湖北農(nóng)村金融研究;2003年11期

5 謝龍;汪飛騰;;淺析意思自治原則及其實(shí)現(xiàn)[J];科教文匯(下旬刊);2008年11期

6 崔艷玲;;論意思自治原則確定《聯(lián)合國(guó)國(guó)際貨物銷售合同公約》的適用[J];哈爾濱學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2008年09期

7 邱四鋒;;從意思自治原則看壟斷經(jīng)濟(jì)的違法性[J];科技信息;2009年17期

8 王剛;;意思自治原則在《國(guó)際商事合同通則》中的適用[J];鄭州航空工業(yè)管理學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2010年06期

9 王岳;;反思意思自治原則在急危病癥搶救中的尷尬[J];中國(guó)衛(wèi)生法制;2011年01期

10 劉洋;劉剛;;侵權(quán)沖突法中意思自治原則的比較研究[J];中國(guó)外資;2011年14期

相關(guān)會(huì)議論文 前1條

1 王永亮;;論意思自治原則在新合同法中的體現(xiàn)[A];中國(guó)民商法實(shí)務(wù)論壇論文集[C];2005年

相關(guān)重要報(bào)紙文章 前6條

1 劉新榮;意思自治原則的適用[N];江蘇經(jīng)濟(jì)報(bào);2013年

2 徐國(guó)棟 廈門大學(xué)法學(xué)院;反思意思自治原則[N];中國(guó)社會(huì)科學(xué)報(bào);2010年

3 張友芹;意思自治原則在民事活動(dòng)中的運(yùn)用[N];人民法院報(bào);2001年

4 廣東經(jīng)天律師事務(wù)所律師 鄭名偉;誠(chéng)實(shí)信用與意思自治原則一場(chǎng)PK[N];證券時(shí)報(bào);2013年

5 武漢大學(xué)法學(xué)院博士生 范姣艷;我國(guó)涉外勞動(dòng)合同中意思自治原則的適用[N];人民法院報(bào);2006年

6 李曉鋒 胡曉暉;意思自治原則是民事行為效力認(rèn)定的基本原則[N];西部法制報(bào);2014年

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 高宇;理念·功能·技術(shù)：意思自治原則的伸展與評(píng)鑒[D];吉林大學(xué);2007年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前10條

1 趙靖;我國(guó)夫妻財(cái)產(chǎn)制中的意思自治原則[D];山西大學(xué);2015年

2 徐悅;論我國(guó)涉外一般侵權(quán)案件中的意思自治原則[D];華東政法大學(xué);2015年

3 朱玉瑾;論意思自治原則在涉外親屬關(guān)系中的適用[D];蘇州大學(xué);2016年

4 陳堯;論涉外物權(quán)法律適用中的意思自治原則[D];華中師范大學(xué);2016年

5 胡勝盛;論意思自治原則在網(wǎng)絡(luò)國(guó)際私法中的適用[D];華中師范大學(xué);2016年

6 沈炬;意思自治原則在勞動(dòng)法領(lǐng)域的適用[D];吉林大學(xué);2016年

7 黃昱豪;可變更、可撤銷合同范圍的研究[D];南昌大學(xué);2016年

8 鄭弼勇;試論涉外侵權(quán)法律適用中的意思自治原則[D];中國(guó)政法大學(xué);2008年

9 馬俐霞;論意思自治原則的價(jià)值性與實(shí)踐[D];中國(guó)政法大學(xué);2005年

10 王艷;論意思自治原則在離婚法律適用中的發(fā)展[D];中國(guó)政法大學(xué);2006年

，

本文編號(hào)：1862769