劳动争议案件仲裁与民事诉讼衔接问题探讨

发布时间：2018-09-11 20:02

【摘要】：劳动仲裁制度本身在多数国家和地区都有存在，只是我国的劳动仲裁在产生和演变过程中融入了自身特色而“独树一帜”，其同时带有行政色彩，也具有司法色彩。在极具中国特色的劳动仲裁制度下，仲裁与诉讼的紧张关系在实践中已经越来越突出，有些地方法院改变仲裁裁决的比率曾经达到近七成，这表明我们现有的劳动仲裁和民事诉讼程序的衔接存在问题。本文第一章首先对于劳动仲裁与民事诉讼程序衔接的国内外研究现状做了总结，整体而言我国国内的相关研究并不在少数，但是多数集中在模式概念之争，缺少对法制现状的容忍，这导致现有研究成果难以付诸实践。国外的研究则认识到劳动仲裁的特殊性，故而对于劳动仲裁与诉讼的并存制度没有异议，反而是认为劳动争议解决机制的过于自由化不利于保护劳动者。本文第二章对我国劳动仲裁与民事诉讼衔接的现状及其原因进行了分析。我国劳动仲裁与民事诉讼并非毫无衔接，但是问题在于存在诸多的衔接不畅问题。虽然立法上对于劳动仲裁与民事诉讼衔接做了良好的立法假设，但是在实践中却不断凸显现有制度的困境。最主要的现实困境是：仲裁后的诉讼率居高不下、诉讼改判率居高不下。劳动仲裁与民事诉讼衔接不畅的原因主要体现在三个方面：立法的衔接不畅、法律适用上的差异、仲裁机构与法院沟通不畅。本文第三章提出了劳动仲裁与民事诉讼的衔接的三项基本目标，即：减少劳动者的诉累、减轻法院审判负担、提高劳动仲裁的权威性。本文第四章针对学者提出的两类劳动仲裁与民事诉讼关系的模式进行分析，认为如果实行单轨模式（包括“只审不裁”模式、“只裁不审”模式、分阶段实行“只裁不审”、“只审不裁”）、并存模式均存在现实困境，并不能有效实行劳动争议纠纷解决机制的设计目标，对当前有限制的并存模式下进行改良则成为最现实的方案。本文第五章对我国劳动仲裁纠纷解决机制运行的解构，从而对劳动仲裁与民事诉讼程序的具体衔接过程做了一一的分析。在仲裁主体上主要涉及：仲裁组织与法院的衔接，仲裁员与法官的衔接。劳动仲裁组织的实体化是实现名正言顺的基础，是实现法律独立、公正形象的前提，进而才能与法院进行平缓的对接。需要在多大的程度上提高仲裁员的素质，这关系到劳动仲裁裁决的法律地位高低，如果承认目前的劳动仲裁社会功能定位，则亟待提高劳动仲裁员的选任标准，我们长期法学教育的发展也为此提供了人才保证。在立案程序上，包括仲裁时效与诉讼时效的衔接、仲裁受案范围与诉讼受案范围的衔接、仲裁地域管辖与诉讼地域管辖的衔接、反诉中疑难问题的衔接处理。其中，劳动仲裁的前置程序决定，劳动仲裁在受案范围、诉讼时效和地域管辖等方面有取代诉讼时效、诉讼受案范围和诉讼地域管辖的问题，为此劳动仲裁在劳动争议方面的时效、受案范围等理应宽于诉讼的相关制度，以此体现劳动仲裁对于劳动争议纠纷更多的救济。在审理程序方面，涉及仲裁证据规则与诉讼证据规则的衔接、仲裁庭审与诉讼庭审模式的衔接。因为劳动仲裁与诉讼程序的衔接并非是实现劳动仲裁的诉讼化，而是要体现劳动仲裁与诉讼程序的分工负责，各有所长，这要求劳动仲裁的审理程序应该有更多的灵活性，同时在其灵活范围内提供劳动仲裁的公信力。本文第六章对法院对劳动仲裁的监督与支持进行了分析，因为法院具有司法终局性，，其制度涉及上是社会纠纷解决和正义的最后一道防线，故而劳动仲裁一方面需要受到法院的监督，另一方面需要获得法院的支持，才能实现司法资源的优化配置。院对劳动仲裁的监督包括对其不作为的监督和不当作为的监督。法院对劳动仲裁的支持包括法院对仲裁保全措施的支持和对仲裁裁决结果的支持。在监督和支持是实现劳动仲裁与诉讼衔接的一大方式，但是也应该注意劳动仲裁与诉讼各有分工，不能出现越俎代庖的过度联系。此外，法院还应当完善劳动诉讼的审理程序，从而积极与劳动仲裁实现无缝衔接。总结而言，本文所秉承的态度是以最小的社会成本来实现劳动仲裁与诉讼的衔接，这就要求我们仔细分析各项争议解决制度的功能以及劳动仲裁所应当承担的社会定位。我们无需一味的追求西化，也不能夜郎自大，而应当充分尊重我国的本土优良资源，借鉴西方成熟的劳动争议解决制度，有发展的实现我国劳动争议的完善处理。
[Abstract]:Labor arbitration system itself exists in most countries and regions, but labor arbitration in our country has merged its own characteristics into the process of its emergence and evolution, and it also has administrative color and judicial color. Under the labor arbitration system with Chinese characteristics, the tension between arbitration and litigation has been in practice. As it has become increasingly prominent, some local courts have changed almost 70 percent of their arbitration awards, suggesting that there is a problem in the connection between our existing labor arbitration and civil proceedings.
The first chapter of this article first summarizes the research status of the connection between labor arbitration and civil procedure at home and abroad. Generally speaking, there are not a few related studies in China, but most of them focus on the controversy of mode concept and lack of tolerance for the legal status quo, which makes the existing research results difficult to put into practice. In view of the particularity of labor arbitration, there is no objection to the coexistence of labor arbitration and litigation. On the contrary, the liberalization of labor dispute settlement mechanism is not conducive to the protection of workers.
The second chapter of this paper analyzes the current situation and reasons of the convergence between labor arbitration and civil litigation in China. There is not no lack of convergence between labor arbitration and civil litigation in China, but the problem is that there are many problems in the convergence. However, the dilemma of the existing system is constantly highlighted. The main practical dilemma is that the rate of litigation after arbitration remains high and the rate of judicial reform remains high.
The third chapter of this article puts forward three basic objectives of the connection between labor arbitration and civil litigation, that is, to reduce the burden of labor litigation, reduce the burden of court trial, and improve the authority of labor arbitration.
Chapter Four analyzes the two modes of labor arbitration and civil litigation proposed by scholars, and holds that if we adopt the single-track mode (including the mode of "only trial but not adjudication", the mode of "only adjudication but not adjudication" and the mode of "only adjudication but not adjudication" in stages), the coexistence mode has realistic predicament and can not effectively carry out labor. The design goal of dispute resolution mechanism is to improve the current limited coexistence mode.
In the fifth chapter, the dissertation deconstructs the operation of the dispute resolution mechanism of labor arbitration in our country, and makes an analysis of the concrete process of the connection between labor arbitration and civil procedure. To what extent the quality of arbitrators needs to be improved, which is related to the legal status of labor arbitration awards. If the current social function of labor arbitration is recognized, it is urgent to improve the selection criteria of labor arbitrators. The development of our long-term legal education has also provided a guarantee of qualified personnel for this purpose. In the case-filing procedure, it includes the connection between the limitation of arbitration and the limitation of action, the connection between the scope of arbitration and the scope of litigation, the connection between the jurisdiction of arbitration and the jurisdiction of litigation, and the connection between the difficult problems in counterclaim. Labor arbitration has the problems of replacing limitation of action, limitation of action and territorial jurisdiction in the scope of accepting cases, scope of accepting cases and jurisdiction of litigation area. Therefore, the limitation of labor arbitration in labor disputes and scope of accepting cases should be wider than the relevant system of litigation, so as to embody that labor arbitration can save more labor disputes. As for the trial procedure, it involves the connection between the rules of arbitration evidence and the rules of litigation evidence, and the connection between the trial of arbitration court and the trial mode of litigation court. The trial procedure should be more flexible and provide the credibility of labor arbitration within its flexible scope.
Chapter 6 analyzes the supervision and support of labor arbitration by the court. Because the court has judicial finality and its system involves the last line of defense of social dispute resolution and justice, labor arbitration needs the supervision of the court on the one hand and the support of the court on the other hand to realize judicial resources. The court's support for labor arbitration includes the court's support for the safeguard measures of arbitration and the result of arbitral award. Supervision and support is a major way to realize the connection between labor arbitration and litigation, but we should also pay attention to labor. Arbitration and litigation have their own division of labor, and there can be no excessive connection between them. In addition, the court should also improve the trial procedures of labor litigation, so as to actively achieve seamless connection with labor arbitration.
In conclusion, the attitude of this paper is to achieve the connection between labor arbitration and litigation at the minimum social cost, which requires us to carefully analyze the functions of various dispute settlement systems and the social orientation that labor arbitration should assume. The excellent local resources, drawing on the mature labor dispute settlement system in the West, have developed to achieve the perfect settlement of labor disputes in China.
【学位授予单位】：华南理工大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2013
【分类号】：D922.5;D925.1

【参考文献】