Labor Arbitration Act
-
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 -
On behalf of the Realm of Great Ruthund, I vote FOR this act.
Tony Odhinazen
EU Councilor, Ruthund -
On behalf of United Duchies I vote for this act
Skye Hook ,Deputy Councillor for United Duchies
The Kingdom of Spain
