The EU Member Countries’ National Law Influence on the Reform of the Institution of Labour Disputes in the Republic of Lithuania
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##
Abstract
The first important conclusion is that an institutionalized advanced non-court order for the resolution of individual labour disputes is not spread among old EU countries.
Secondly, the countries that still have that order are looking for the ways to reform it. The aim of their reforms is similar – to create a certain compensatory mechanism that would act the same way as the judicial one, e.g., Paragraph 2 of Article 9 of the Labour Code of the Republic of Lithuania claims the following: “Where the analogy of labour regulatory acts cannot be applied, the provisions of other branches of law regulating similar relations shall be applied according to the basic principles and substance of labour laws”, such as indicated in Paragraph 1 of Article 293 of the Labour Code of the Republic of Lithuania: “The members of the Labour Disputes Commission mutatis mutandis shall be applied the grounds and order of suspension as it is foreseen by the Code of Civil Procedure” or similar.
Thirdly, due to the peculiarities of the national lawmaking, it would be hard to distinguish one model prevailing within the EU. It guarantees that in the nearest future the search for one common order to resolve individual labour disputes on the EU level will not be performed.
The fourth conclusion states that the reformation of the legal system of Lithuania, which took place during the Independence period, was evidently related to political and social life changes that the country faced after entering the EU. However, those changes, as well as the integration of the country into the EU, had no practical impact on the essential change of the institution of labour disputes. It may be stated that the reform of the institution of labour disputes in Lithuania has been determined not by the objective causes, but by the subjective factors that resulted from social traditions and everyday topicality of the country.
The fifth conclusion invites to disseminate modern practice of separate countries related to the expansion of social partnership in the area of resolution of individual labour disputes, develop the variety and geography of the conciliation of dispute parties, promote economically the parties to search for compromise, etc.
Secondly, the countries that still have that order are looking for the ways to reform it. The aim of their reforms is similar – to create a certain compensatory mechanism that would act the same way as the judicial one, e.g., Paragraph 2 of Article 9 of the Labour Code of the Republic of Lithuania claims the following: “Where the analogy of labour regulatory acts cannot be applied, the provisions of other branches of law regulating similar relations shall be applied according to the basic principles and substance of labour laws”, such as indicated in Paragraph 1 of Article 293 of the Labour Code of the Republic of Lithuania: “The members of the Labour Disputes Commission mutatis mutandis shall be applied the grounds and order of suspension as it is foreseen by the Code of Civil Procedure” or similar.
Thirdly, due to the peculiarities of the national lawmaking, it would be hard to distinguish one model prevailing within the EU. It guarantees that in the nearest future the search for one common order to resolve individual labour disputes on the EU level will not be performed.
The fourth conclusion states that the reformation of the legal system of Lithuania, which took place during the Independence period, was evidently related to political and social life changes that the country faced after entering the EU. However, those changes, as well as the integration of the country into the EU, had no practical impact on the essential change of the institution of labour disputes. It may be stated that the reform of the institution of labour disputes in Lithuania has been determined not by the objective causes, but by the subjective factors that resulted from social traditions and everyday topicality of the country.
The fifth conclusion invites to disseminate modern practice of separate countries related to the expansion of social partnership in the area of resolution of individual labour disputes, develop the variety and geography of the conciliation of dispute parties, promote economically the parties to search for compromise, etc.
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##
Section
Articles
Authors contributing to Jurisprudence agree to publish their articles under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public (CC BY-NC-ND) License, allowing third parties to share their work (copy, distribute, transmit) and to adapt it, under the condition that the authors are given credit, and that in the event of reuse or distribution, the terms of this licence are made clear.
Authors retain copyright of their work, with first publication rights granted to the Association for Learning Technology.
Please see Copyright and Licence Agreement for further details.
Authors retain copyright of their work, with first publication rights granted to the Association for Learning Technology.
Please see Copyright and Licence Agreement for further details.
