Labor Arbitration Act
-
Debate shall begin NOW and end 18 February 2021 at 20:00 GMT.
Charles Michel
Council Speaker and Councilor for Fremet -
James Mizrachi-Roscoe :"As many know as a Roscoe I believe the worker deserves a say and a good living. That is why we have unions on our board and workers on the board in significant numbers however having said that I have my concerns about this act. This would work well for nations like United Duchies and Syndicate Union but may not work well in all cultures, I'm thinking cultures like the DU and it might not work well in cases of SME's,. As such I am going to propose ammendments to this act. I believe this should be an opt in scheme funded by workers unions and countries should choose whether to join such a scheme or not. Its not worth a Duxexit or Anglexit over this piece of legislation."
Proposed Ammendments:
SECTION I: THE ARBITRATION BOARD
I. In every nation that joins, an “Arbitration Board,” or several “Arbitration Boards,” will be established.
II. Nations with similar existing structures are exempted.
III. During a labor dispute, an Arbitration Board may be asked to negotiate a solution.
IV. Negotiations shall take the form of a meeting composed of an equal number of representatives from each recognized side of a labor conflict. Each side shall have one vote in negotiation; the Arbitration Board will have none.
V. During such a meeting, the Arbitration Board is to mediate between the two sides. If necessary, it may propose a possible solution to the conflict, after at least 160 hours of negotiation have passed without solution.
VI. A solution must gain the agreement of all sides involved.
VII. Arbitration boards are constituted according to the regulations and laws of a member-state; however, they must be neutral.
VIII:Arbitration boards shall be funded by either unions or governments as decided by the nation
VIIII. This act shall apply to companys over 250 employees -
I do not see anything in this legislation that would require opt ins or opt outs. The point of it is to ensure that those in the dispute, if they feel incapable of solving it on their own, have a resource to have recourse to. The only clauses I think that could be controversial would likely be clause V, and potentially all of Section II, which of course I understand is highly controversial.
Ensuring that the act applies only to companies over 250 employees, and that they should be funded either by unions or governments, makes little sense to me. How the act could hurt SMEs is beyond me, given that the boards are supposed to be impartial; as for the latter, it is an unnecessary restriction.
As such, I propose the following amendments:
AMENDMENT II
V. During such a meeting, the Arbitration Board is to mediate between the two sides. If necessary, it may propose a possible solution to the conflict, after at least160 hours of negotiationa period of time to be set by member-stateshavehas passed without solution.AMENDMENT III
I. Ifthere is a prevailing belief that a solution is in some way unfair or was coerced, or that the Arbitration Board is biased or simply unhelpful, a labor dispute continues despite the intervention of an Arbitration Board, or if the dispute has occurred on a European level the European Arbitration Board may be asked to negotiate in its place.Kelarōn Juvinal
Councillor for the Union of Syndicates -
"I feel like in the brief hours that have passed since I returned to this Council, I have had to voice Inimicus's opposition to EU power-grabbing legislation more times than I can count already. Labour disputes are, possibly more so than most issues discussed in this Council recently, solely, uniquely, and completely, a matter for member states. And I do not just claim this from a political point of view, but perhaps more so from a cultural one.
"Our Union stretches far and wide, crosses a wide range of different work ethics, labour systems, and workplace cultures. One simply cannot expect to mandate, from the EU, the way disputes are supposed to be solved. It simply will not work for many member states represented here. Cllr Mizrachi-Roscoe cleverly attempted to work an opt-in system into this legislation, which I would be in favour of, although I think this should be more explicitly stated than he has suggested in his amendments."
Cllr Sir Augustus Barrington
Temporary Councillor for Inimicus -
Of course, but no one is mandating that disputes must be solved in this way. This act solely wishes to provide an additional resource, which, by section I clause II, would likely be the same as already existing structures.
In this vein, I propose the following amendment:
II. Nations with similar existing structures , that is, an institution or institutions in which sides of a labor dispute are equally represented and in which negotiation is mediated by an at least nominally neutral body, are exempted.
Kelarōn Juvinal
Councillor for the Union of Syndicates -
It is funny, in my opinion, that a councillor from a country that was a dictatorship until 2 weeks ago now want to tell us how to negotiate with our workers. But it is always the same: the left overloads the European Union with unuseful institutions, mostly to help workers but to overload the budget. This is another unuseful thing the European Union needs to avoid having in its organization. I'm opposed to this act and I'll explain everyone here why.
"In every nation, an “Arbitration Board,” or several “Arbitration Boards,” will be established." This already exists in many countries around Europe, and even if those with similar structures are exempted, it may change many things from the common negotiation in every country which doesn't have a similar system. What we are doing here is to remove the dialogue between the enterprise and the workers, and putting some persons which have nothing to see there to mediate, and so tell us section IV and V: "Negotiations shall take the form of a meeting composed of an equal number of representatives from each recognized side of a labor conflict. Each side shall have one vote in negotiation; the Arbitration Board will have none." and "During such a meeting, the Arbitration Board is to mediate between the two sides. If necessary, it may propose a possible solution to the conflict, after at least 160 hours of negotiation have passed without solution." This is mostly trying to avoid some strikes, and I think strikes are needed, they are part of the modern democracy some countries in our region seemed not to know and they still don't know about it in some cases.
Appart from that, I do second the words from Cllr. Barrington, who I want to welcome back to the Council. It's once again concerning that you, Councillor, are trying to give more power to the European Union. You were already trying this with the Slum Clearance and Urban Renewal Regulation Act, which was withdrawn, and now you are trying to do it once again with this act. And I will repeat what the consequences of a huge European integration is: Departures from the European Union, rise of Euroscepticism, inestability and some countries could feel disturbed for this.
Creating a "European Arbitration Board" is overloading the budget with something nobody, or at least my country, isn't expected to use. I see this act as completely unuseless, and I think my vision is shared by many here. Thank you.
-
Again, I do not see how this is integrationist. I also do not like the slurs made upon my country - it emerged from an extraordinary state of emergency two weeks ago, not a dictatorship. And quite finally, this is not particularly expensive, nor integrationalist. As a result, I propose the following amendments:
AMENDMENT V
SECTION II:
THE EUROPEAN ARBITRATION BOARDENFORCEMENT
I. If there is a prevailing belief that a solution is in some way unfair or was coerced, or that the Arbitration Board is biased or simply unhelpful, the European Arbitration Board may be asked to negotiate in its place.
II. The European Arbitration Board has at least two members. Its members are appointed by the Internal Affairs Commissioner.
III. The European Arbitration Board and its negotiations are subject to the same regulations and formats placed upon national-level Arbitration Boards by this Act and its possible successors.
I. Non-neutrality on the part of an Arbitration Board or equivalent may be tried in the European Court of Justice.AMENDMENT VI
V. During such a meeting, the Arbitration Board is to mediate between the two sides.If necessary, it may propose a possible solution to the conflict, after at least 160 hours of negotiation have passed without solution. -
May we extend debate on this act?
-
Of course, the debate period shall be extended to Monday, 22 February 2021 at 20h00 GMT to ensure that everyone has a chance to weigh in on this legislation.
Charles Michel
Council Speaker and Councilor for Fremet -
May we again extend debate?
-
The debate period shall be extended to Wednesday, 24 February 2021 at 20h00 GMT to ensure that everyone has a chance to weigh in on this legislation.
Charles Michel
Council Speaker and Councilor for Fremet -
Pravoslaviya is not opposed to the principle of having neutral arbitration boards for industrial disputes, although we also recognise that other countries may prefer to have other systems, such as the courts or legal mediation, or may allow parties to decide on another mutually acceptable third-party arbitration or mediation services. I think the Bill as initially written is very micromanaging in how it dictates procedures in arbitration boards, so I welcome Amendments II and VI in particular.
However, we will not submit either our workers or our businesses to the jurisdiction of a 'European Arbitration Board'. While I welcome Cllr Juvinal's most recent amendment, I would prefer that recourse be to national courts first, and then to the ECoJ. I would like to propose, therefore, the following:
AMENDMENT VII
SECTION II:
THE EUROPEAN ARBITRATION BOARDENFORCEMENT
I. If there is a prevailing belief that a solution is in some way unfair or was coerced, or that the Arbitration Board is biased or simply unhelpful, the European Arbitration Board may be asked to negotiate in its place.
II. The European Arbitration Board has at least two members. Its members are appointed by the Internal Affairs Commissioner.
III. The European Arbitration Board and its negotiations are subject to the same regulations and formats placed upon national-level Arbitration Boards by this Act and its possible successors.
I. Member states will amend their national laws where necessary to comply with this Act within six months of its passage.
II. Member states shall in their national laws guarantee that Arbitration Boards operating in their territory are fair, neutral, consistent, and independent of all sides.
III. If a side believes that an Arbitration Board is biased, unfair, arbitrary, or compromised by one or more sides, then it may seek recourse in the courts of the relevant member state.
IV. If, following the exhaustion of all legal avenues under Section II, Clause III of this Act, a side believes that the relevant member state is not abiding by this Act, then it will have standing to bring forth legal action against that member state in the European Court of Justice. -
The obvious advantage of including an arbitration board before the dispute arises is that once the dispute does arise, you can force the dispute out of the court system, and you can force the other side to arbitrate.
But the thing is we have an excellent Petition Office system in the ECOJ which can create jurisdiction on Labor conflict situations in the member states. I would prefer as the Councillor from Pravoslaviya has stated that any recourse be to national courts first, and then to the ECoJ. I'm not in favor of creating an alternative dispute institution. It means more bureacracy and finding an easy way to complex situations.
Emma Granger
Councillor for Montenbourg -
I am in support of the amendment of Councillor Shakur, and thus withdraw Amendments V and III.
-
Debate on this issue has ended. It is now time to vote on Amendments. Voting starts NOW and ends 2 March 2021 at 15h00 GMT.
As Councilor Juvinal has withdrawn their amendments, there are only two up for a vote:
AMENDMENT 1 (Proposed by Cllr Mizrachi-Roscoe)
SECTION I: THE ARBITRATION BOARD
I. In every nation that joins, an “Arbitration Board,” or several “Arbitration Boards,” will be established.
VIII. Arbitration boards shall be funded by either unions or governments as decided by the nation
VIIII. This act shall apply to companys over 250 employees.
AMENDMENT 2 (Proposed by Cllr Tupac Shakur)
SECTION II:
THE EUROPEAN ARBITRATION BOARDENFORCEMENT
I. If there is a prevailing belief that a solution is in some way unfair or was coerced, or that the Arbitration Board is biased or simply unhelpful, the European Arbitration Board may be asked to negotiate in its place.
II. The European Arbitration Board has at least two members. Its members are appointed by the Internal Affairs Commissioner.
III. The European Arbitration Board and its negotiations are subject to the same regulations and formats placed upon national-level Arbitration Boards by this Act and its possible successors.
I. Member states will amend their national laws where necessary to comply with this Act within six months of its passage.
II. Member states shall in their national laws guarantee that Arbitration Boards operating in their territory are fair, neutral, consistent, and independent of all sides.
III. If a side believes that an Arbitration Board is biased, unfair, arbitrary, or compromised by one or more sides, then it may seek recourse in the courts of the relevant member state.
IV. If, following the exhaustion of all legal avenues under Section II, Clause III of this Act, a side believes that the relevant member state is not abiding by this Act, then it will have standing to bring forth legal action against that member state in the European Court of Justice.
AMENDMENT 3 (Proposed by Cllr Juvinal)
SECTION I: THE ARBITRATION BOARD
V. During such a meeting, the Arbitration Board is to mediate between the two sides.
If necessary, it may propose a possible solution to the conflict, after at least 160 hours of negotiation have passed without solution.
I vote FOR Amendments 2 & 3 and AGAINST Amendment 1.
Charles Michel
Council Speaker and Councilor for Fremet -
Speaker Michel, I did not withdraw the former Amendment VI.
Kelarōn Juvinal
Councillor for the Union of Syndicates -
Thank you for bringing that to my attention. I have rectified my mistake on the initial docket. Voting will be extended 3 hours and will now end 2 March 2021 at 15h00 GMT.
Charles Michel
Council Speaker and Councilor for Fremet -
I vote FOR all amendments.
Cllr Tupac Shakur
-
On behalf of United Duchies I vote for ammendment 1 and 3
James Mizrachi-Roscoe
Councillour for United Duchies -
I vote FOR amendments II and III and AGAINST amendment I.
Donald Tusk
Deputy Speaker and Councillor for Spain
The Kingdom of Spain