No open-access location is known for this record yet.
No open-access location is known for this record yet.
As for work-to-rule, the precedent has been for the so-called “Be is Normal theory” stance since the 1990s. In many cases, workers have often started to engage in workto-rule without going through procedures such as voting because they believe that it is not an industrial action, and in this case, not only the legitimacy of the industrial action itself could be denied but also be charged with a crime of business interference. This could possibly lead to an infringement on the right to collective action, which is guaranteed by the Constitution.BR If an act of compliance with the law causes harm to normal business operations, it is questionable whether there are illegality issues with the usual state of facts (working environment). If there is something wrong and illegal with the current state of facts, it must be corrected then can be called a “proper state without any problem” (normal). Work-to-rule is the normalization of abnormalities, and it is only coming into the legal boundary. It is absurd to say that the judicial system will protect abnormal conditions. Even if the judiciary is not involved in the realm of legislation, it is right to correct anything wrong through the interpretation of the law, and at least should not strengthen it. Assuming that illegal and evasive business operations in accordance with practice are “normal” and engaging in legal activities is a labor dispute, it would be tantamount to our nation’s judicial system degrading workers’ rights guaranteed by labor laws that have long been formed in the name of the law, and protecting and encouraging illegal activities. Compliance of the law cannot be regarded as the subject of the eliminatory factor of wrongfulness premised in illegality. From the employer’s point of view, when the business is operated according to the law and if regulation is too strict in ways that the employer is unable to operate the business normally, the current law is misplaced. However, if the judicial system concludes that it will not ease the unrealistic regulation through interpretation but rather take the initiative to strengthen it, it would not be fair. Therefore, the judicial branch should not conclude that a failure to comply with the law that ignores reality is normal, separately from the fact that the (bad) law that makes businesses legally ungovernable may be declared unconstitutional or revised according to democratic principles. (Even under the “Should is Normal theory” with narrow views of the correspondence of labor dispute of work-to-rule as a form of dispute, in some cases there is work-to-rule that can be an industrial action.)BR In conclusion, as one of the industrial actions, the concept of “work-to-rule” is completely legitimate but not labor dispute, but can be categorized into a strike or a combination of activities if the law is abused, and it does not need any more. Therefore, there is no work-to-rule in forms of industrial action, such as safety struggle, refusal to work overtime, use of collective leave, and submission of collective resignation; and even by comparative consideration, it is no longer necessary to discuss work-to-rule as a form of separate industrial action. In this regard, the case needs to be revised, and the lower court’s recent ruling on the Should is Normal theory is welcome in that the court also recognized problems in which the law-abiding legal judgment can be contradictory within the legal system.
Loading…
Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.