我国劳动争议案件证明责任分配研究

发布时间：2018-11-20 20:58

【摘要】：我国现行法规范将劳动争议案件证明责任分配纳入了民事诉讼法,但是存在劳动关系的双方当事人之间不仅存在平等关系,而且具有隶属关系,这导致了他们在举证能力上存在差异。如果单纯按照普通民事案件的证明责任分配规则来解决用人单位和劳动者之间的劳动争议,既不具有针对性,也不便于实务操作,因此应当探讨解决我国劳动争议案件的较为完善的证明责任分配规则,使之更加符合我国司法需要。根据目前研究现状可知,我国关于劳动争议案件证明责任分配的研究要么侧重理论阐释,要么围绕具体案例展开分析,但至今较少有从实证分析的角度来研究的。考虑到全国各级法院审理劳动争议案件的数量繁多,山东省作为经济强省,劳动争议多发,劳动争议案件类型多且所涉证据内容丰富,作为样本研究更具有代表性,所以选取山东省2016年的劳动争议案件作为研究对象。运用实证分析的方式,在横向比较山东省一审法院的裁判情况,发现我国劳动争议案件证明责任分配的问题主要存在于三个方面:从举证层面来看,当事人因证据偏在和证据未形成而举证困难。从规则适用层面来看,《证据规定》第6条因笼统、模糊而未明确证明责任倒置的具体内容;公平和诚实信用原则分配证明责任的作用不突出;各法院对关于劳动争议案件证明责任分配的法规范条文引用不规范等。从法规范层面来看,法院引用的法规范条文不够全面;无论法规范如何修改,法院引用的法规范条文变化不大。在纵向比较山东省各级法院的裁判情况后,发现的新问题主要是:一审或二审误判率比较高;法官分配证明责任错误;部分案件的特殊性导致其适用现有分配规则可能发生不公。而产生这些问题的主要原因可以归结到我国劳动争议案件证明责任分配的法规范和法实务这两个层面。在法规范层面,我国"法律要件分类说"下的法规范对证据偏在和证据未形成的问题没有加以阐明;证明责任分配规则没有全面、细致、专门的法规范加以阐述,已有的法规范不仅零散而且内容狭窄。在法实务层面,法官对相关分配规则的理解不深入而作出不合理的裁判;法官对规范用法未予足够重视而导致法律适用部分不规范。因此,解决这些问题,促进司法公平运行的措施在于,继续坚持法律要件分类说;兼顾公平性和合理性来完善证明责任倒置的相关法规范;采取多种方式规范法官运用证明责任分配规则,提高审判质量;将高度盖然性作为补充性的分配规则而加以适用,以期对完善我国的证明责任分配有所裨益。
[Abstract]:The current law of our country includes the distribution of burden of proof in labor dispute cases into the civil procedure law, but there is not only an equal relationship but also a subordinate relationship between the two parties involved in labor relations. This leads to differences in their ability to prove evidence. If the labor dispute between the employer and the laborer is resolved simply according to the rules on the allocation of the burden of proof in ordinary civil cases, it is neither pertinent nor convenient for practical operation. Therefore, we should explore the more perfect rules of burden of proof to solve the labor dispute cases in our country, so as to make it more in line with the judicial needs of our country. According to the current research situation, the research on the distribution of burden of proof in labor dispute cases in China is either focused on theoretical interpretation or around the specific case analysis, but so far there is little from the perspective of empirical analysis. Considering that the number of labor dispute cases heard by courts at all levels in the country is numerous, Shandong Province, as a strong economic province, is prone to labor disputes, has many types of labor dispute cases and has abundant evidences, and is more representative as a sample study. So choose Shandong Province 2016 labor dispute case as the research object. By using the method of empirical analysis and comparing the judgment situation of the first instance court of Shandong Province horizontally, it is found that the distribution of burden of proof in labor dispute cases in our country mainly exists in three aspects: from the level of proof, It is difficult for the parties to present evidence because the evidence is biased and the evidence is not formed. From the point of view of the application of the rules, Article 6 of "evidence stipulation" is not clear about the concrete contents of the inversion of the burden of proof because of its general and vague nature, the role of the principle of fairness and good faith in the distribution of the burden of proof is not prominent. The law and regulations about the assignment of burden of proof in labor dispute cases are not standard. From the point of view of legal norms, the provisions cited by the court are not comprehensive enough; no matter how the legal norms are modified, the provisions cited by the courts do not change much. After the longitudinal comparison of the adjudication of the courts at all levels in Shandong Province, the new problems found are: the higher misjudgment rate of first or second instance, the wrong burden of proof assigned by judges; The particularity of some cases may result in unfair application of the existing rules of distribution. The main reasons for these problems can be attributed to the distribution of burden of proof in labor disputes in China. At the level of legal norms, the legal norms under the "classification of legal elements" do not clarify the problems of evidence bias and lack of evidence formation; The rules of distribution of burden of proof are not comprehensive, detailed and specialized. The existing norms of law are not only scattered but also narrow in content. At the level of law practice, judges do not understand the relevant rules of distribution deeply and make unreasonable decisions; judges do not pay enough attention to the use of norms, which leads to the non-standard part of the application of the law. Therefore, the measures to solve these problems and promote the fair operation of the judicial system are to continue to adhere to the classification of legal elements, to take account of fairness and rationality to perfect the relevant legal norms of the inversion of the burden of proof; In order to perfect the distribution of burden of proof in our country, we should adopt various ways to standardize the rules of distribution of burden of proof, improve the quality of trial, and apply the high degree of probability as supplementary rules of distribution.
【学位授予单位】：山东大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：D925.1

【相似文献】