Labor Arbitration Act
-
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 You were already trying this with the Slum Clearance and Urban Renewal Regulation Act, which was withdrawn, and now you are trying to do it once again with this act.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 -
Given the recent shenanigans, I've extended the voting period on Amendments to 5 March 2021 at 20h00 GMT.
Charles Michel
Council Speaker and Councilor for Fremet -
On behalf of the Commonwealth of Leagio, I vote FOR Amendments I & II and I vote AGAINST Amendment III.
Francis Plessis
EU Councilor for Leagio -
Kelarōn Juvinal, on the behalf of the Union of Syndicates, transmits their vote as being FOR Amendments II and III and AGAINST Amendment I.
Mathilde Comtois
Deputy Councillor for the Union of Syndicates -
Voting on amendments has now concluded.
With 3 votes FOR and 3 votes AGAINST, Amendment I has FAILED. With 5 votes FOR and 1 vote AGAINST, Amendments II and III have PASSED.
Final voting begins NOW and will last until 21:35 GMT on March 11th, 2021.
Donald Tusk
Deputy Speaker and Councillor for Spain -
On behalf of the Kingdom of Spain, I vote AGAINST this act.
Donald Tusk
Deputy Speaker and Councillor for Spain
The Kingdom of Spain
