检索规则说明:AND代表“并且”;OR代表“或者”;NOT代表“不包含”;(注意必须大写,运算符两边需空一格)
检 索 范 例 :范例一: (K=图书馆学 OR K=情报学) AND A=范并思 范例二:J=计算机应用与软件 AND (U=C++ OR U=Basic) NOT M=Visual
机构地区:[1]大连海事法院海事庭,辽宁大连116001 [2]大连海事法院海商庭,辽宁大连116001
出 处:《中国海商法研究》2017年第4期58-64,共7页Chinese Journal of Maritime Law
基 金:辽宁省社会科学规划基金项目"辽宁省外派船员人身伤亡损害赔偿及船员权利保护法律问题研究"(L12DFX016);辽宁省教育厅人文社会科学重点研究基地专项项目"辽宁省外派船员合同法律性质研究"(ZJ2014023)
摘 要:劳动争议解决机制与海事法院专门管辖的冲突实为海事诉讼法下的船员劳务合同纠纷是否适用仲裁前置的问题。通过两则案例,阐述了该冲突的表现,该冲突对劳动争议仲裁机构、法院造成诉累,易滋生管辖权异议的滥用,不能及时维护船员的合法权益。产生该冲突的原因是多方面的,包括对船员劳务合同纠纷的理解存在差异、相关法律法规缺乏衔接、忽视海事案件的专门性。对此,提出了司法应对及立法建议。The conflict between the labor dispute settlement mechanism and the maritime court's special jurisdiction is the question of whether the dispute over the seafarer's labor contract under the maritime litigation law is applicable to arbitration.This article describes the performance of the conflict through the analysis of two cases. Such a conflict burdens the labor dispute arbitration institution and the court,and causes the abuse of the objection to jurisdiction. As a result,the lawful rights and interests of the crew can not be safeguarded in time. The reasons for the conflict are multifaceted,including differences in the understanding of the crew contract dispute,the lack of convergence of relevant laws and regulations,ignoring the special nature of maritime cases. In this regard,this paper puts forward the judicial response and legislative suggestions.
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在链接到云南高校图书馆文献保障联盟下载...
云南高校图书馆联盟文献共享服务平台 版权所有©
您的IP:216.73.216.49