« 「雇い止め」制限検討、有期労働対象のルール作りへ 厚労省 | トップページ | お互い様というセーフティーネット »

これがノルウェーの解雇規制法です

厳密に言えばノルウェーはEU加盟国ではないのですが、まあ「EUの労働法政策」というカテゴリーに入れておきます。

ノルウェー政府によるノルウェーの労働者保護及び労働環境法の英訳がここにあります。

http://www.ub.uio.no/ujur/ulovdata/lov-19770204-004-eng.pdf

結構膨大ですが、そのうち不公正解雇に関わるところを引用しておきますと、

>Section 60. Protection against unfair dismissal.

1. Employees may not be dismissed unless this is objectively justified on the basis of matters connected with the establishment, the employer or the employee.

2. Dismissal due to curtailed operations or rationalization measures is not objectively justified if the employer has other suitable work to offer the employee in the establishment. When deciding whether a dismissal is objectively justified by curtailed operations or rationalization measures, the needs of the establishment shall be weighed against the disadvantage caused by the dismissal for the individual employee.
Dismissal owing to an employer’s actual or planned contracting out of the establishment’s ordinary operations to a third party is not objectively justified unless it is absolutely essential in order to maintain the continued operations of the establishment.

3. Dismissal before an employee reaches 70 years of age due solely to the fact that the employee has reached retirement age pursuant to the National Insurance Act shall not be deemed to be objectively justified. After the employee reaches 66 years of age, but not later than six months before he reaches retirement age, the employer may inquire in writing whether the employee wishes to retire from his post upon reaching retirement age. A reply to this inquiry must be returned in writing not less than three months before the employee reaches retirement age.
Provided that this is expressly stated in the inquiry, protection against dismissal under the preceding paragraph lapses if no reply is received within the time limit stated.

Section 61. Disputes relating to unfair dismissals, etc.

1. In legal proceedings concerning whether an employment relationship exists or compensation in connection with termination of an employment relationship, Act No. 5 of 13 August 1915 relating to the Courts of Justice and Act No. 6 of 13 August 1915 relating to Judicial Procedure in Civil Cases shall apply,but in accordance with the special rules laid down in this section and sections 61A, 61B and 61C. Claims in connection with or in the place of claims that may be submitted pursuant to the first sentence may be included.

2. Employees who wish to claim that an employment relationship has not been legally terminated or who wish to claim compensation owing to termination of an employment relationship may demand negotiations with the employer.
In that event the employee shall notify the employer of this in writing not later than two weeks after receiving notice. The employer shall arrange a meeting for negotiations at the earliest opportunity and not later than within two weeks of receiving the request.
If the employee institutes legal proceedings or notifies the employer that proceedings will be instituted without negotiations having been conducted, the employer may demand negotiations with the employee. A demand for negotiations shall be submitted in writing as soon as possible and not later than two weeks after the employer has been notified that legal proceedings have been or will be instituted. The employer shall arrange a meeting for negotiations in accordance with the rules of the preceding paragraph and, if legal proceedings have been instituted, shall notify the court in writing that negotiations will be conducted. The employee is obliged to attend the negotiations.
The employee is entitled to engage the assistance of an elected union representative or other adviser during the negotiations. Similarly the employer may engage the assistance of an adviser.
The negotiations must be completed not later than two weeks from the day the first negotiating meeting was held, unless the parties agree to continue negotiations.
Minutes shall be kept of the negotiations and shall be signed by the parties and their advisers.

3. If the dispute is not settled by negotiation or if negotiations are not conducted, the employee may, within eight weeks of the conclusion of negotiations or of the date that notice of dismissal was given, open legal proceedings pursuant to the rules laid down in this Act, nevertheless cf. section 57, subsection 2, third paragraph, of this Act. If the employee claims compensation only, the time limit for legal proceedings is 6 months from the date notice of dismissal was given. The parties may agree upon a longer time limit for legal proceedings in each individual case.
If negotiations have been conducted, a certified copy of the minutes shall be forwarded with the summons.

4. As long as the dispute is the subject of negotiations in accordance with the rules of subsection 2, the employee may remain in his post.
If legal proceedings have been instituted in accordance with subsection 3 within eight weeks of the time negotiations were concluded or notice was received, and before expiry of the period of notice, the employee may remain in his post until a legally enforceable judgement is delivered. The same applies if, before the period of notice expires, the employee notifies the employer in writing that legal proceedings will be instituted within the eight-week time limit. Nevertheless, when so requested by the employer, the court may order that the employee shall leave his post while the case is in progress, provided that the court finds it unreasonable that employment should continue while the case is in progress. At the same time the court shall stipulate the time limit within which the employee is to leave.
The court may decide that an employee who has been unlawfully locked out of his place of work after the time limit for notice has expired is entitled to resume his post, if the employee so requests within four weeks of such a lockout.
The right to remain in the post does not apply to participants in labour market schemes under the direction of or in collaboration with the Labour Market Administration who are dismissed because they are offered ordinary employment or transferred to another scheme or because the scheme is terminated.

第60条第1項にあるように、ノルウェーでも解雇には客観的な理由が必要です。整理解雇の場合、事業所内で配転の余地があれば合理的な理由とは認められないとありますが、逆に言えば、遠距離配転しないと仕事がないというのは客観的な理由になるのでしょう。その次の外部委託を理由にした解雇はそれが「絶対的に不可欠」でなければだめだというのも興味深いです。

まあ、こういうところが「北欧の解雇規制」です。以上、ミニ講座終わり。

|
|

« 「雇い止め」制限検討、有期労働対象のルール作りへ 厚労省 | トップページ | お互い様というセーフティーネット »

EUの労働法政策」カテゴリの記事

コメント

北欧の解雇、ミニ講座ありがとうございました。

「解雇」について、経営側は「やりたい放題、いつでも自由に解雇」が希望でそういうのがアメリカにあるように思い、労働側は「手厚く守られて安定した雇用」が希望でそういうのがヨーロッパにあるように思い、という感じで、ぶらり庵から見るとどっちもどっち、ですね。

アメリカだって、組合が強いところではどうしようもなく働かない人間でも解雇できない、という話を友人から聞いたことがあります。また、北欧でも「解雇できるのか」という感じの反応がありそうですけれど、そもそも労働は契約だから解消できる、その解消の条件を合理的に決める、ことは「解雇自由」とは全く違うことだと思うのですが、日本では、労使ともに、その「契約」観念が薄いのでは?経営側は「ワンマン親父」、労働側は「暖かい母」にような、未だに契約以前の労使関係を夢見ているのでは?

北欧で「手厚い」と思われている労働法、それによって「守られている」のではなく、ヴァイキングの子孫の方々はそれを自分たちで作っていて(とりわけ、「デーン」人)、そして、合理的に組み立てている、と思います。「解雇できない」だの「解雇されない」ように守ってほしい、というのも違いますよね。解雇されなくたって、経済変動の中では会社そのものがつぶれることもしばしばある。その場合まで含めて、働き続けられる条件を整備するのが理想的でしょうし、北欧はそれをめざしていると思います。これまた「手厚い」と言われる北欧の福祉だって、日本の人がそう想像するんじゃないかと思いますが「どんな人にも懇切丁寧に接してくれる」とかいうのじゃないですよ。「自分でできるところは自分でする・させる」が基本で、住まいは確保してくれるけれど、よほど重度の障害のある高齢者でない限り、必要なケアは数分ですませて、看護・介護者はとっとと立ち去る、のが基本です。

大体、解雇紛争までもつれた場合、職場にとどまるのが必ずしも気持ちの良い選択ではない、そこでの関係がすっかり壊れているのなら、合理的な「契約解消」条件に則って次の方向をめざす、方が建設的ということもあると思います。そのときに金銭解決をするからと言って、それが「解雇自由論」ではありませんね。

ちなみに、ぶらり庵は、労働契約だけでなく、生活にかかわる契約としては、婚姻などもできるだけ自由に、という方向で合理的に考えているのがヨーロッパだと思っています。

投稿: ぶらり庵 | 2009年2月24日 (火) 06時59分

コメントを書く



(ウェブ上には掲載しません)


コメントは記事投稿者が公開するまで表示されません。



トラックバック

この記事のトラックバックURL:
http://app.f.cocolog-nifty.com/t/trackback/3288/28315188

この記事へのトラックバック一覧です: これがノルウェーの解雇規制法です:

« 「雇い止め」制限検討、有期労働対象のルール作りへ 厚労省 | トップページ | お互い様というセーフティーネット »