Search
Search Results
-
Possibilities of workplace mediation in the European Union
1-13.Views:374The world of labor market and industrial relations is a field where conflicts and disputes are inevitable characteristics of the operation, regardless of the form of employment. Also, labor disputes appear both from an individual aspect, where the disputants are the employer and the employee, and in a collective respect, where the disputes take place between the employer(s) and the collective of the workers, typically represented by an employee organization (union) or a works council.
When a conflict or a dispute cannot be resolved through negotiation, the law offers dispute resolution mechanisms for the participants. Therefore, several legal mechanisms have been evolved in order to resolve disputes, starting from the classical form of litigation, where a court determines the end of the dispute by its judgement, and other alternative forms of dispute resolution, such as arbitration, mediation and conciliation, where the parties can reach a decision or a settlement outside of the judicial system of the state.
EU Member States have introduced various legislative rules for labor dispute resolution covering all manner of individual and collective disputes. ADR schemes are also supported by the ILO, as the ILO Recommendation No. 92 (1951) suggests that voluntary conciliation should be made available to assist in the prevention and settlement of industrial disputes between employers and workers. Within the aegis of the European Union, several instruments have emerged with the attempt to elaborate the basic principles for the operation of ADR schemes in the context of cases between businesses and consumers. The Directive 2013/11/EU on alternative dispute resolution for consumer disputes (the “ADR Directive”) and Regulation (EU) No 524/2013 on online dispute resolution for consumer disputes (the “ODR Regulation”) ensured that consumers could turn to quality alternative dispute resolution entities for all kinds of contractual disputes with traders, and established an EU-wide online platform for consumer disputes that arise from online transactions with traders.
Workplace mediation is widely and successfully utilized in the USA for solely employment purposes both in the private and the public sector. Also, in the United States is a “employment at will” doctrine prevails, that basically means – unless stipulated to the contrary by the parties – the employment relationship can be terminated with immediate effect without any justification (just cause), thus workers do not have access to legal remedies as in the EU where the statutory laws provide a broad protection against arbitrary or unjust termination. Mediation, however, provide an effective solution for employees and workers, even if situated outside the protective scope of labor law.
While the role of customer/consumer ADR and mediation is increasing throughout the whole European Union, workplace and employment mediation still constitutes a “grey zone”. In many of the legal instruments of the EU and also in several products of the national legislations, consumers and workers are treated with the same legal awareness, thus protective laws compensate their weaker position in their legal relationships, but as far as the utilization and access of dispute resolution schemes are concerned, a significant but not always reasonable differentiation can be detected. Also, while mediation is an available tool for individual employment matters, still has not been utilized considerably, and remained an instrument only to resolve mostly collective conflicts. Therefore, the aim of this paper to present various styles of mediations from a comparative perspective, to express their biggest advantages and to highlight the areas where mediation could be more suitable to use in the context of the individual disputes of the workplace.
-
Gerhard G. Hösl: Mediation – die erfolgreiche Konfliktlösung - Grundlagen und praktische Anwendung
74-81Views:148A mediáció mint diverziós eljárási modell létjogosultsága és hatásfoka az egyik legvitatottabb kérdése a hazai és nemzetközi jogtudománynak. Gerhard G. Hösl tanulmánya ugyanakkor olyan pragmatikus módszerrel dolgozza fel e jogintézmény alkalmazásának folyamatát, amely komoly iránymutatást adhat a hazai jogalkalmazás számára is. A könyv gyakorlati példákon keresztül illusztrálja a közvetítői eljárásban résztvevő személyek számára irányadó magatartásformákat, a közvetítőként eljáró személy (ld. mediátor) lehetséges feladatait, valamint a szóban forgó jogintézmény előnyös hatásait.
Elöljáróban megjegyezném: a jogtudomány számos képviselője azon az állásponton van, hogy jelen eljárásjogi konstrukció derogálja a bíróságok presztízsét, míg mások a jogviták megoldásának hatékonyabb, gyorsabb és az érdekeltek számára minden szempontból kedvezőbb lehetőségét látják benne. E teoretikus vitapontok ellenére megállapítható, hogy a legfejlettebb uniós tagállamokban már rutinszerűen alkalmazzák e lehetőséget: Ausztriában több mint 4000 mediációs szervezet létezik, Németországban - Hannoveri székhellyel - 2003 óta évente országos kongresszusokat tartanak e tárgykörben, Svájcban kógens jogszabályi előírásokat hoztak a mediátorok képzési rendszerével kapcsolatosan, stb. Leszögezhető tehát, hogy e konstrukció igénybevétele növekedő tendenciát mutat, mégpedig - nemzetközi szinten - elsősorban a családi, az öröklési, a munka-, a gazdasági és a büntetőjog területén. A könyv tárgyát képező praxis jövőbeni fejlődése azonban természetesen a jogalkotó, illetőleg jogalkalmazó kezében van, teljes mértékben kikristályosodott gyakorlatról pedig még egy európai állam esetében sem beszélhetünk.
-
Possibilities of mediation in the criminal procedure with the eye of a labour lawyer
Views:37Mediation or agreement between perpetrator and victim in criminal law is a special form of damage reparation. Contrary to the simple reparation – where is no need to have a formal contract between the parties – mediation means a meeting between the parties to make an agreement that suits to both of them.
Development of mediation in criminal law has its roots in the birth of diversion. It was a formal legal procedure to rebuild the injured legal system and repair damages. The first programs of mediation have appeared in Canada and the United States.
Differently from the conciliation in labour law authorities have to define guidelines about forms of procedures outside the trial, about the process and modes of harmonization to preserve the prestige of state’s power of punish.
In the mediation process competence of making decisions are in the hand of the parties too. Parties have to order upon the agreement. This extra-jurisdictional form of agreement means that the potential victim gives up his right to accusation. This agreement frees the perpetrator from the criminal liability.
We can say that fundamental principles of mediation are the same in any fields of law, but mediation in criminal law has the most interesting and numerable specification because of the state power.
-
A büntetőjogi mediáció gyakorlati aspektusai
1-12Views:98Mediation is a conflict-management method designed to achieve restorative justice (offenders should assume responsibility and pay the penalty for their deeds, with the greatest emphasis on reparation of the victim, and the affronted community should be conciliated). This method may be applied to solving a variety of disputes or conflicts (e.g. disputes involving neighbours, families, couples, and companies).
The mediation technique has already been used in the fields of civil law, family law and employment law. From 2007 onwards, it can also be applied in criminal procedures. According to Article 221/A of the Code on Criminal Procedure (Act XIX of 1998) the mediation process may be used in criminal procedures dealing with certain offences against the person, property or traffic offences if the crime is punishable with no more than five years imprisonment, and the offender has made a confession during the criminal investigation.