SECURITIES (CLEARING HOUSES) ORDINANCE ——附加英文版
Hong Kong
SECURITIES (CLEARING HOUSES) ORDINANCE
(CHAPTER 420)
CONTENTS
ion
I PRELIMINARY
hort title
nterpretation
II DECLARATION OF CLEARING HOUSES FOR PURPOSES OF THIS
NANCE AND RULES OF CLEARING HOUSES
ecognized clearing houses
ules of recognized clearing houses, etc.
III MODIFICATIONS OF THE LAW OF INSOLVENCY TO SAFEGUARD
ATIONS AND PROCEDURES OF RECOGNIZED CLEARING HOUSES, ETC.
roceedings of recognized clearing house take precedence over law
of
lvency
upplementary provisions as to default proceedings
uty to report on completion of default proceedings
et sum payable on completion of default proceedings
isclaimer of property, rescission of contracts, etc.
Adjustment of prior transactions
Right of relevant office-holder to recover certain amounts
arising
certain transactions
Application of market collateral not affected by certain other
rests, etc.
Enforcement of judgments over property subject to market charge,
etc.
Law of insolvency in other jurisdictions
IV MISCELLANEOUS
Participant to be party to certain transactions as principal
Securities deposited with recognized clearing house
Immunity, etc.
Preservation of rights, etc.
Amendment of Schedules 1 and 2
(Omitted as spent)
Transitional
dule 1 Property which may be subject to a market charge or provided
as
et collateral
dule 2 Requirements for default rules of recognized clearing
houses
dule 3 (Omitted as spent)
Whole document:
rdinance to empower the Commission to declare clearing houses
to be
gnized clearing houses for the purposes of this Ordinance, to
provide
the approval by the Commission of the rules of recognized
clearing
es, to make provision for safeguarding the operations and
procedures
ecognized clearing houses, and to provide for matters
incidental
eto or connected therewith.
ctober 1992] L. N. 324 of 1992
PART I PRELIMINARY
hort title
This Ordinance may be cited as the Securities (Clearing
Houses)
nance.
(Omitted as spent)
nterpretation
In this Ordinance, unless the context otherwise requires--
rge" means any form of security, including a mortgage;
aring house" means a person--
whose activities or objects include the provision of services for
the
ring and settlement of transactions in securities effected
on, or
ect to the rules of, the Unified Exchange; or
who guarantees the settlement of any such transactions;
mission" means the Securities and Futures Commission
established by
ion 3 of the Securities and Futures Commission Ordinance (Cap.
24);
stitution", in relation to a clearing house, means the memorandum
and
cles of association of the clearing house;
ault proceedings" means any proceedings or other action taken
by a
gnized clearing house under its default rules;
ault rules", in relation to a recognized clearing house, means
such of
rules of the clearing house which it is required to have by virtue
of
ion 4 (2);
aulter" means a participant who is the subject of any
default
eedings; "functions" includes duties and powers;
ket charge" means a charge, whether fixed or floating,
granted in
ur of a recognized clearing house--
over any property specified in Schedule 1 which is held
by or
sited with the clearing house; and
for the purpose of securing liabilities arising directly in
connection
the clearing house's ensuring the settlement of one or more
market
racts; "market collateral" means any property specified in
Schedule 1
h is held by or deposited with a recognized clearing house for
the
ose of securing liabilities arising directly in connection
with the
ring house's ensuring the settlement of one or more market
contracts;
ket contract" means a contract subject to the rules of a
recognized
ring house entered into by the clearing house with a
participant
uant to a novation which is both in accordance with those rules
and
the purposes of the clearing and settlement of
transactions in
rities effected on, or subject to the rules of, the Unified
Exchange;
icer" means an officer within the meaning of section 2
of the
anies Ordinance (Cap. 32);
ticipant" means a person who, in accordance with the rules
of a
gnized clearing house, may participate in one or more of the
services
ided by the clearing house in its capacity as a clearing house;
formance", in relation to a function, includes discharge and
exercise;
ognized clearing house" means a clearing house declared under
section
) to be a recognized clearing house for the purposes
of this
nance;
evant office-holder" means--
the Official Receiver appointed under section 75 of the
Bankruptcy
nance (Cap. 6);
any person acting in relation to a company as its
liquidator,
isional liquidator, receiver or manager;
any person acting in relation to an individual as his
trustee in
ruptcy or interim receiver of his property; or
any person appointed pursuant to an order for the
administration in
ruptcy of an insolvent estate of a deceased person;
es", in relation to a clearing house--
means the constitution, rules, regulations or directions, by
whatever
called, governing the membership, management,
operations and
edures of the clearing house; and
without restricting the generality of paragraph (a), includes
rules,
lations or directions relating to--
the provision of clearing and settlement services, and the
suspension
ithdrawal of such services;
the provision of services other than the services referred
to in
aragraph (i);
) the persons who may participate in one or more of the
services
rred to in subparagraphs (i) and (ii); and
setting and levying fees and charges;
urities" means securities within the meaning of section 2
of the
rities Ordinance (Cap. 333);
tlement", in relation to a market contract, includes
partial
lement; "Unified Exchange" means the Unified Exchange
established
r section 27 of the Stock Exchanges Unification Ordinance (Cap.
361).
Where--
a charge is granted partly for the purpose specified in the
definition
market charge" and partly for other purposes, the charge is in
this
nance a market charge in so far as it has effect for that
specified
ose;
collateral is provided partly for the purpose specified
in the
nition of "market collateral" and partly for other
purposes, the
ateral is in this Ordinance market collateral in so far as it has
been
ided for that specified purpose.
References in this Ordinance to the law of insolvency
include
rences to every provision made by or under--
the Bankruptcy Ordinance (Cap. 6);
the Companies Ordinance (Cap. 32); and
any other enactment which is concerned with or in any way related
to
insolvency of a person.
References in this Ordinance to settlement in relation to a
market
ract are to the discharge of the rights and liabilities of the
parties
he contract, whether by performance, compromise or otherwise.
PART II DECLARATION OF CLEARING HOUSES FOR PURPOSES OF THIS ORDI-
NANCE AND RULES OF CLEARING HOUSES
ecognized clearing houses
Where the Commission is satisfied that it is appropriate to do
so in
interest of the investing public or in the public interest, or
for the
er regulation of services for the clearing and
settlement of
sactions in securities, it may, with the consent in writing
of the
ncial Secretary, by notice in the Gazette, declare a clearing
house to
recognized clearing house for the purposes of this Ordinance.
Where the Commission makes a declaration under subsection
(1) in
ect of a clearing house--
it shall give notice thereof in writing to the clearing house;
and
the rules of the clearing house in operation immediately
before the
aration shall continue to have effect unless otherwise
specified, or
l such time as is specified, in the notice referred to in paragraph
ules of recognized clearing houses, etc.
Subject to section 3 (2) (b) and subsection (4), no rules
of a
gnized clearing house (including any default rules of the
clearing
e) or any amendment thereto shall have effect unless
approved in
ing by the Commission.
A recognized clearing house shall have rules which provide
for the
ng of proceedings or other action in the event of a
participant
aring to be unable, or likely to become unable, to
meet his
gations in respect of all unsettled market contracts to which he
is a
y, and such rules shall comply with the requirements of Schedule
2.
Where a recognized clearing house takes any default proceedings,
all
equent proceedings or other action taken under its rules
for the
oses of the settlement of market contracts of which the
defaulter
erned is a party shall be treated as done under the default rules
of
clearing house notwithstanding that, but for this subsection,
such
equent proceedings or other action would not be treated as done
under
default rules of the clearing house.
The Commission may, by notice in the Gazette, declare any
class of
s of a recognized clearing house (except any default rules
of the
ring house) to be a class of rules which are not required
to be
oved under subsection (1) and, accordingly, any rules of that
clearing
e which belong to that class (including any amendment thereto)
shall
effect notwithstanding that they have not been so approved.
Without prejudice to the operation of subsection (4), a
recognized
ring house shall submit or cause to be submitted to the
Commission,
the information of the Commission, any of its rules
(including any
dment thereto )--
which belong to a class of rules the subject of a declaration
under
ection (4); and
as soon as practicable after those rules (or amendment thereto,
as the
may be) are made.
A recognized clearing house shall submit or cause to be
submitted to
Commission for its approval the rules of the clearing house and
every
dment thereto except any rules (including any amendment thereto)
which
ng to a class of rules the subject of a declaration under
subsection
Subject to subsections (8) and (9), the Commission shall,
within 6
s after the receipt of any submission under subsection (6)
from a
gnized clearing house, give notice in writing to the clearing
house
its approval of; or
its refusal to approve,
rules or amendment of the rules, as the case may be, or any
part
eof, the subject of the submission.
The Commission may, in a particular case, with the agreement of
the
gnized clearing house concerned, extend the time
prescribed in
ection (7).
The Financial Secretary may, on the advice of the
Commission and
er generally or in a particular case, extend the time
prescribed in
ection (7).
The Commission may request in writing a recognized clearing
house--
to make rules--
specified in the request; and
within the period specified in the request; or
to amend rules--
referred to in the request;
in the manner specified in the request; and
) within the period specified in the request.
Where the Commission is satisfied that a recognized clearing
house
not complied with a request referred to in subsection (10) within
the
od specified in the request, the Commission may direct in writing
the
ring house to comply with the request within such further period
as is
ified in the direction and, accordingly, the clearing house
shall
ly with that request within that further period.
For the purposes of subsection (10), "rules", in relation
to a
gnized clearing house, do not include the constitution of the
clearing
e.
PART III MODIFICATIONS OF THE LAW OF INSOLVENCY TO SAFEGUARD OPE-
RATIONS AND PROCEDURES OF RECOGNIZED CLEARING HOUSES, ETC.
roceedings of recognized clearing house take precedence over
law of
lvency
None of the following shall be regarded as to any extent
invalid at
on the ground of inconsistency with the law relating
to the
ribution of the assets of a person on insolvency,
bankruptcy or
ing-up, or on the appointment of a receiver over any of the assets
of
rson--
a market contract;
the rules of a recognized clearing house relating to the
settlement of
rket contract;
any proceedings or other action taken under the rules of a
recognized
ring house relating to the settlement of a market contract;
a market charge;
the default rules of a recognized clearing house; or
any default proceedings.
Subject to subsection (3), the powers of a relevant office-
holder in
capacity as such, and the powers of a court under the
law of
lvency, shall not be exercised in such a way as to
prevent or
rfere with--
the settlement in accordance with the rules of a recognized
clearing
e of a market contract; or
any default proceedings.
Subsection (2) shall not operate to prevent a relevant
office-holder
seeking to recover any amount under section 11 after the
completion
matter referred to in paragraph (a) or (b) of that subsection.
upplementary provisions as to default proceedings
A court may on an application by a relevant office-holder make
such
r as it thinks fit altering or releasing him from compliance with
such
he functions of his office as are affected by the fact that
default
eedings are pending or could be taken, or have been or could have
been
n and, accordingly, such functions of the relevant officeholder
shall
onstrued subject to such order.
Nothing in--
section 12, 14 or 20 of the Bankruptcy Ordinance (Cap. 6); or
section 166, 181, 183, 186 or 254 of the Companies Ordinance
(Cap.
shall prevent or interfere with any default proceedings.
uty to report on completion of default proceedings
A recognized clearing house shall, upon the completion by it of
any
ult proceedings, make a report on such proceedings stating in
respect
ach defaulter--
the net sum, if any, certified by the clearing house to be payable
by
o the defaulter; or
the fact that no sum is so payable,
he case may be, and the clearing house may include in that report
such
r particulars in respect of such proceedings as it thinks fit.
A recognized clearing house which has made a report
pursuant to
ection (1) shall supply the report to--
the Commission;
any relevant office-holder acting in relation to--
the defaulter to whom the report relates; or
that defaulter's estate;
if there is no relevant office-holder referred to in paragraph
(b),
defaulter to whom the report relates.
Where the Commission receives pursuant to subsection (2) a report
made
uant to subsection (1), it may publish notice of that fact in
such
er as it thinks appropriate to bring it to the attention of
creditors
he defaulter to whom the report relates.
Where a relevant office-holder or defaulter receives
pursuant to
ection (2) a report made pursuant to subsection (1), he shall,
at the
est of a creditor of the defaulter to whom the report relates--
make the report available for inspection by the creditor;
on payment of such reasonable fee as the relevant office-
holder or
ulter, as the case may be, determines, supply to the creditor all
or
part of that report.
In subsections (2), (3) and (4), "report" includes a copy of a
report.
et sum payable on completion of default proceedings
The provisions of this section shall apply with respect to any
net sum
ified under section 7 (1) (a) by a recognized clearing house, upon
the
letion by it of any default proceedings, to be payable by or
to a
ulter.
Where a receiving or winding-up order has been made, or a
resolution
voluntary winding-up has been passed, any net sum
shall,
ithstanding any of the provisions of section 34 or 35
of the
ruptcy Ordinance (Cap. 6) or section 264 of the Companies
Ordinance
. 32), be--
provable in the bankruptcy or winding-up or, as the case
may be,
ble to the relevant office-holder; and
taken into account, where appropriate, under section 35
of the
ruptcy Ordinance (Cap. 6) or that section as applied in the case
of a
ing-up order under the Companies Ordinance (Cap. 32).
isclaimer of property, rescission of contracts, etc.
Neither section 59 of the Bankruptcy Ordinance (Cap. 6) nor
section
of the Companies Ordinance (Cap. 32) shall apply in relation to--
a market contract;
a contract effected by a recognized clearing house for the purpose
of
izing property provided as market collateral;
a market charge; or
any default proceedings.
Neither section 42 of the Bankruptcy Ordinance (Cap. 6) nor
section
of the Companies Ordinance (Cap. 32) shall apply in relation to
any
matter or thing which has been done pursuant to--
a market contract;
a disposition of property pursuant to a market contract;
the provision of market collateral;
a contract effected by a recognized clearing house for the purpose
of
izing property provided as market collateral, or any
disposition of
erty pursuant to such a contract;
a disposition of property in accordance with the rules of a
recognized
ring house as to the application of property provided as
market
ateral;
不分页显示 总共2页 1 [2]
下一页
浅析劳动法律关系的社会法属性
谢侃
美国法律哲学家埃德加·博登海默在《法理学:法律哲学和法律方法》一书中写道:“尽管法律是一种必不可少的具有高度助益的社会生活制度,但是,它象其他大多数人定制度一样也存在一些弊端。如果我们对这些弊端不给予足够的重视或者完全视而不见,那么它们就会发展成严重的操作困难。”法律所具有的滞后性、不周延性、模糊性等弊端是法律自身特性所决定的,法律不能通过自身进行自给自足的完善,需要人为的弥补。法官由于不能拒绝裁判,往往在没有明确法律前提的情况下就必须作出选择、判断,特别是在一些立法涉足不深的新领域,当法官们找不到一个明确的、周延的、适时的、充分的法律规定时,就不得不对已有的法律予以解释或在此基础上进行创造。法官造法是不可避免之事实,但同时也产生了诸多弊端,贝卡利亚、罗伯斯比尔、孟德斯鸠、卢梭等人都曾强烈主张剥夺和限制法官解释法律、创造法律的权力。法官在具体的案件中解释法律、创造法律必定要遵循一定原则,没有原则的解释、创造,只能是表达法官的恣意与懵动。而在个案中,要找到进行解释所遵循的原则,首先是要确定案件中法律关系的属性,法律关系的属性决定和限定了解释法律、创造法律所应遵循的原则,它将直接影响案件的程序和实体处理。如税务行政机关与企业法人之间的加工承揽纠纷,被判定为民事法律关系属性后,即可遵循自愿原则对涉及纷争所需法律进行解释,但若双方之间是税收纷争,被判定为行政管理法律关系,则自愿原则就无法适用,法律关系属性决定了适用什么原则。案件中法律关系属性确定恰当与否,对案件的裁判至关重要,特别是对法律规定较不完善领域的司法更为重要,它可以为法官指明寻找原则的方向,限定原则的范围。笔者认为,当前,劳动法律关系应是具社会法属性的法律关系,而非具民事法律或行政法律属性的法律关系。
一、计划经济模式造就了劳动法律关系在历史上的行政法律属性
马克思曾指出:“法的关系正象国家的形式一样,既不能从它本身来理解,也不能从所谓人类精神的一般发展来理解,相反,它们根源于物质的生活关系。”社会经济的发展离不开人类劳动,劳动与经济紧密相联,在社会中,对劳动法律关系属性的认识必定受到社会经济状况的强烈影响。我国从半殖民地半封建社会直接过渡到社会主义社会,并且长期实行计划经济,在目前的市场经济模式以前,生产资料和劳动力完全由国家控制,统一由国家计划安排。不管是企业中的劳动者、机关事业单位的劳动者,还是农村的农民都成为国家管理的对象,国家为每一个人安排职业、就业单位、限定就业地域等等,更甚者,农村的小孩一出生便被以户口的形式安排了职业——农民。劳动者被安排后也无法自由流动,丝毫没有选择,国家成了唯一的用人单位,全体劳动者都受雇于国家,劳动者与国家形成一种人身依附关系。这种用人单位(国家)与劳动者之间的依附关系在形式上表现为一种行政管理关系,社会的各个行业在国家机关里都有对应的系统局(部),如纺织局、轻工局等等,由这些国家机关以各种文件自上而下发出行政命令(文件)对劳动者进行管理,企业也象国家机关一样分为股科处厅部等级别实行自上而下的人员管理。劳动者隶属于用人单位,双方没有协商,没有互动,只有由上至下的单向命令,用人单位也不与劳动者签订任何合同,双方在法律地位上不平等,只表现为一种行政隶属关系。这种状况导致人们对劳动、劳动关系、劳动法律关系的认识行政化,国家对劳动者的管理就是行政管理,双方就是行政管理关系,这种被当时法律法规所调控的劳动关系具有的是行政法律属性。
二、市场经济的推行使劳动法律关系具有民事法律的属性
恩格斯曾指出:“法的发展的进程大部分只在于首先设法消除那些由于将经济关系直接翻译成法律原则而产生的矛盾,建立和谐的法的体系,然后是经济进一步发展的影响和强制力又一再突破这个体系,并使它陷入新的矛盾(这里我暂时只谈民法)”。社会经济的发展变化促使包括法律在内的上层建筑发展变化。我国实行改革开放后,逐步推行市场经济,宪法数次修改,生产资料不再由国家单一占有,经济上主要实行市场竞争。多种所有制形式的企业应运而生,企业之间竞争日趋激烈,在这些用人单位劳动的劳动者不能如计划经济时期享有稳定的岗位、稳定的工资福利,另一方面,由于政策的允许和城镇发展对农村劳动力的需求,大量农村的劳动者转移到城镇就业,劳动力的流动加大。劳动者无法或者是可以不再依附于局限的用人单位,经济发展为劳动者提供了更多的就业空间,当劳动者有权有条件选择自己劳动力出让的对象时,用人单位已无法用以往的行政管理方式对双方之间的权利义务进行划分,双方呈现出一种形式上的平等关系。在平等主体之间要进行某种转让或交易,为了确定双方权利义务,双方的选择只能是也只会是协议(合同),也只有合同才能承担起这一职能。前些年,全社会大力推行全员合同制,以合同形式改变之前的行政化管理,以合同的形式来确认、表达、促成双方的平等。国家先后用行政法规、规章对劳动合同予以了确认,如1980国务院颁布的《中华人民共和国中外合资经营企业劳动管理规定》,1983年劳动人事部发布的《关于积极试行劳动合同制的通知》,1986年国务院颁布的《国营企业实行劳动合同制暂行规定》,至1994年,全国人大制定《劳动法》,用法律形式确认劳动合同。这些法律、法规、规章本身并没有规定劳动合同是一种民事合同或者劳动法律关系具有民事法律属性,但从实践操作和理论解释来看,它们是运用了民事法律理论。如劳动法规定,订立劳动合同应当平等自愿、协商一致,又如劳动部在《关于贯彻执行〈中华人民共和国劳动法〉若干问题的意见》中规定,“劳动争议发生之日”是指当事人知道或者应当知道其权利被侵害之日,这些都是源于民事法律理论。法国学者勒内·达维德在其《当代主要法律体系》一书中指出:“民法在我们的各类法律中起了基础学科的作用,法的其他门类曾以其为模式(行政法)或为某些类的关系努力使之完善(劳动法)。”用人单位和劳动者呈现形式上的平等状况后,民事法律理论被运用其中是顺理成章的结果,因为除此之外,没有其他理论能够胜任。世界上的许多国家,劳动法都根源于民法,如德国、日本、瑞士都曾在民法中规定“雇佣”章节,意大利直接把劳动法制定在民法典中。我国的现行的劳动法理论也是以劳动合同为契机,以形式平等为基础,从民事法律理论发展起来的,逐步摆脱以往所具有的行政法律属性,转而具有民事法律属性。
劳动法律关系从行政法律属性到民事法律属性,笔者认为这是一种社会进步,解除人身依附,赋予劳动者一定自由选择的权利。就个人而言,提升了个人的权利,就社会而言,优化了资源配置,促进了生产力发展,完成了从“人身到契约”的社会发展过程,劳动者与用人单位实现了形式上的平等。
三、劳动者与用人单位之间存在实质上的不平等
(一)劳动力供需状况决定了实质上的不平等
国家统计局公布的2002年国民经济和社会发展统计公报显示:全国就业人员7亿3千万,其中城镇就业人员2亿4千万,城镇登记失业率为4%。据此推算,2002年城镇登记失业人口约为一千万,此仅仅为城镇登记失业部分,加上隐形的和农村的,再加上每年递增的部分,数量非常庞大,据某些学者估计,现今失业人口大约在2亿人左右,相当于一个大国人口的总数。我国就业压力沉重是不争之事实,劳动力大量过剩,供大大过于求,在这种状况下,劳动者要得到一个岗位相当不容易,整个劳动力市场呈现买方主导局面。劳动力不同与其他商品,其他商品在呈现买方市场时,投资就会萎缩,商品减少,市场就会趋于均衡,而劳动力附着于人身,其无法在一定时间内减少,劳动者为了获取生活资料维持生存就必须进入市场进行劳动,整个劳动力市场就会呈现一种偏激状态。劳动者就业竞争激烈,用人单位可以充分选择并且压低工资水平、减少福利等等,劳动者弱者地位突出,在签订劳动合同时总处于一种附合地位。近日在东北某高校举行的人才招聘会上,有的毕业生为了挤进自己向往的单位,竟主动提出“零工资就业”,即在试用期不要钱,经过考验得到认可后再建立劳动关系。在“僧多粥少”的就业环境下,劳动者宁愿放弃作为生存所必需的工资,放弃某些作为社会中人的基本权利。在这种情况下,如果任由用人单位与劳动者之间去“自由”缔约,那么在很多情况下,用人单位给予劳动者的将只是让他或她得以继续劳动所需的最低报酬,而非给予他或她作为社会中人最基本存在所需的报酬。在现今社会中事实亦的确如此,今年2月,上海《外滩画报》以《谁是上海最累的人?--上海现代“包身工”生存状况调查》为题,报道了复旦大学社会学系教授组织学生志愿者调查医院护工生存状况的内容:(护工)她们每天工作二十多个小时,每周七天,在医院和家政公司领到的只有每月七百元左右的工资。另去年8月,《广州日报》以《"洗脚妹"生存状态调查》为题报道:深圳数万名大多是18岁至25岁的外来洗脚妹,她们手长时间浸在药水和接触湿毛巾,致使许多洗脚妹患上风湿性关节炎、指掌角化症、真菌癣等病。这些危及个人基本权利的例子举不胜举,在劳动力严重供大于求的情况下,劳动者宁愿放弃诸如休息、健康、福利等等基本的权利出卖劳动力,并且这一切都披着自愿、自由的平等外衣以合同的形式在进行着。这种平等只能是形式上的平等,而非实质上的平等,是实质上的不平等。
(二)劳动力之人身特性决定了实质上的不平等
在排除供需状况条件的情况下,劳动者和用人单位在劳动力交易过程中也很难平等,这主要是由客体——劳动力的人身特性决定的。马克思曾明确地指出“我们把劳动力或者劳动能力,理解为人的身体即活的人体中存在的,每当人生产某种使用价值时就运用的体力和智力的总和”。“不管有用劳动或生产活动怎样不同,它们都是人体的机能,而每一种这样的机能不管内容和形式如何,实质上都是人的脑、神经、肌肉、感官等等的耗费。这是一个生理学上的真理”。劳动力与劳动者的人身紧密相连,劳动者进行劳动时是利用其人身产生劳动力为用人单位创造价值。劳动者与用人单位交易的对象是劳动力而非劳动力创造的物品,当劳动者与用人单位建立劳动关系,劳动者就把自己的劳动力交付给用人单位支配,劳动者的人身亦同时受到用人单位的支配。恩格斯在《论权威》中指出:“大工厂是以进门者放弃一切自治为特征的”。梁慧星教授在《中国是否需要体育产业法》一文中谈到:“这是因为雇佣合同是劳动合同,它是劳动者把自己的人身自由交给了雇佣人,如果允许签订长期的甚至无期限的劳动合同,等于一个人人身自由就丧失了,因此,各国限制雇佣合同的期限”。劳动者在与用人单位建立劳动关系前,其有权利选择交付劳动力的对象,二者具有一定的平等性,但一旦建立劳动关系,这种平等即因劳动力及劳动力附着的人身被支配而改变,双方从平等走向实质的不平等。虽然劳动合同和法律仍然载明了双方应是平等的,但事实上双方已不可能平等,除非借助某种外力的干预。
四、形式上平等,但实质上不平等的劳动法律关系应当由社会法调整
(一)民事法律无法调整实质上不平等的劳动法律关系
形式上平等,实质上不平等的法律关系也可由民事法律调整,如显失公平的合同,但这只是民事法律的特殊调整,是其中的特例,形式上平等、实质上也平等与形式上平等、实质上不平等在民事法律调整中应是一般与特殊的关系。即实质上平等是绝大多数的,实质上不平等是极少数的。民事法律主要针对形式和实质均平等的法律关系予以调整,平等是民事法律关系的本质特征,也是民事法律关系区别于其他法律关系的主要标志,平等原则是市场经济的本质特征和内在要求在民事法律上的具体体现,是民事法律最基础、最根本的一项原则。在平等的基础上,当事者才能真正做到意思自治,通过意思自治来实现自己的自由意愿,从而最大限度地满足当事者各方的权益。倘若在民事法律关系主体之间不能呈现平等,或者说呈现的是形式上的平等而实质上的不平等,那么当事者各方达成的意愿只能说是强者的意愿,弱者的无奈,而非真正的自由表达。此时再用民事法律,用民事法律的原则、精神去调整它,那将是无益的,因为民事法律设计的前提是主体平等,它在平等这一前提下分配权利义务,而主体实质上不能平等时,再用民事法律去分配权利义务就不是立法本来的初衷,违背了立法的本意。此非但不能达到调整之效果,反而以法之名确认了这些实质上的不平等,这样将只会对法律功能产生巨大的负面影响。例如,处于垄断地位的天然气公司在供气前向用户搭售然气灶具,虽然双方用书面合同表明用户可自愿选择买或不买,但很显然双方只是形式上的平等,在实质上无法平等,用户无法做到意思自治,用户的权益将受到损失,如果适用民事法律的理论,很难对此予以公平调整。就劳动法律关系而言,笔者并不否认存在实质上平等的例子,但平等却是极少数的、特殊的,不平等是多数的、一般的。因而用民事法律对劳动法律关系予以调整是不适宜的。
(二)劳动法律关系应当由社会法调整
人生而应平等,但事实却非如是。人的出生就是不平等的,不平等是一种无法回避的事实,劳动法律关系双方的不平等也是人类社会发展到一定阶段所产生的不可避免之事实。哲学教授何怀宏在《公平的正义——解读罗尔斯》一书中谈到:“要坚持形式的平等就必须允许实质的不平等,而你若坚持实质的平等就要破坏形式上的平等。你不可能两者兼得,而只能两者择一。”社会法就是这样一种部门法,它针对这种事实上的不平等,运用自身不平等的法律形式去达到社会生活中实质上的平等,这是一个否定之否定到肯定的辩证过程。社会法是国家为了保障社会公众利益,通过加强对社会生活的干预而产生的一种立法。它属于公私法以外的第三法域,它所体现的是社会公众利益,调整对象往往是传统的私法主体,当事者各方的关系是在形式平等的掩盖下,存在着实质的不平等。调整方式多是国家通过创制单行法律、法规、规章等等,对所有权、契约自由、意思自治等等传统私法权利予以严密限制,直接由法律规定以往由各方自行约定的内容,在排除当事者完全意思自治的基础上保留一定的约定自由权利。它的法律原则是向弱者倾斜和保护弱者,在立法上倾向于弱者,赋予弱者更多的权利,更多的权利实现渠道、权利救济渠道。在具体的渊源上,各国多是以单行法律呈现,如单独制定劳动、消费、教育、环境污染、社会保障等方面法律。
劳动法律关系所具有的形式上平等但实质上不平等特性,以及此特性在数量上的普遍性决定了其应由社会法予以调整,由于受社会法调整便具有了社会法的属性。劳动法律关系从行政法律属性到民事法律属性,再到社会法属性,完成了从人身依附到形式平等,再到实质平等的社会进步过程。当确定了劳动法律关系应具有社会法属性,法官在裁判案件时就应当依据社会法的原则对裁判前提予以解释,依据社会法的原则对漏洞予以弥补。
五、结合劳动法律关系的社会法属性分析当前司法中的三个问题
(一)裁判依据的探寻应遵循倾斜保护劳动者原则
法官裁判案件总是需要大前提作为依据,法官把事实和大前提进行比对,从而判定当事者的各种权利义务,但大前提即裁判依据并不是自动出现或由当事者准确提供,需要法官去筛选、去判断,去探寻和发现。法官在审理劳动争议案件时必须探寻到供以裁判的法律前提,民事案件由私法作为裁判前提,行政案件由公法作为裁判前提,而劳动法律关系由于具有社会法属性使劳动争议案件的前提更为复杂和特殊,其有可能将公法和私法均包含在之内。梁慧星教授在全国人大常委会法制讲座中谈到:“当劳动合同关系发生纠纷时,应当首先适用劳动法的有关规则,关于劳动法没有规定的事项,则应适用民法关于合同关系的规定。”笔者认为,首先、应当优先适用倾斜保护劳动者的裁判规范,国家的劳动法、劳动行政法规、劳动地方性法规、劳动规章及规范性文件几乎均是基于保护劳动者的宗旨制定的,在处理劳动争议案件时应当优先适用这些规范。其次、当缺乏上述专门的劳动规范存在时,则可适用民事法律规范,如民法通则、合同法等等,因为在没有倾斜保护规范的情况下,至少应当实现形式上的平等,故而应当适用民事法律规范。其中应明确,虽然民法通则、合同法是法律,而劳动规章是规章,单就级别效力而言,前者效力高于后者,但因前者是适用平等主体的规范,而后者是专门规范,故即使是规章只要是专门性的劳动规章也应优先适用。再次,在审理中还可适用集体合同的约定,集体合同是工会或职工代表与用人单位签订的劳动合同,单个的劳动者与用人单位签订的劳动合同约定的权益低于集体合同的约定时,则应按集体合同确定劳动者权益,在审理中可把集体合同的约定作为裁判前提以达到倾斜保护劳动者的目的。
(二)对仲裁时效之规定应按倾斜保护劳动者原则予以解释
《劳动法》第八十二条规定:“提出仲裁要求的一方应当自劳动争议发生之日起六十日内向劳动争议仲裁委员会提出书面申请。”在司法审判实践中,对如何理解劳动争议发生之日的含义颇有不同。劳动部1995年8月颁布的《关于贯彻执行〈中华人民共和国劳动法〉若干问题的意见》第八十五条之规定:“‘劳动争议发生之日’是指当事人知道或者应当知道其权利被侵害之日。”此为劳动保障部以规章形式对劳动法作出的行政解释。另我国《民法通则》第一百三十七条规定:“诉讼时效期间从知道或者应当知道权利被侵害时起计算。”从二者表述可知,劳动保障部是采用民事法律理论对劳动法的仲裁时效作出的解释。而劳动法明文规定的是“劳动争议发生之日”,而非“知道或者应当知道其权利被侵害之日”,从“争议发生”之文字的表面意义予以解释无法得出“知道或者应当知道其权利被侵害”的意思。争议是指双方对某一问题有分歧,而知道或者应当知道其权利被侵害是单方的知晓行为,二者在汉语语意上有较大的差别。故对此条款存在上述两种不同的解释。笔者认为劳动保障部的解释不符合社会法的倾斜保护劳动者原则,此应当按字面意义解释更利于保护劳动者权益。因为,第一、从数量上看劳动者作为申请人(原告)占绝大多数,用人单位作为申请人(原告)只占极少数,被劳动法的仲裁时效条款予以考查适用的大多为劳动者的诉权,故主要应从劳动者行使诉权方面去考量作出何种选择。第二、国家在劳动方面的规范纷繁复杂,再加上用人单位的自定制度,规定双方权利义务的条款数量庞大,特别是国家关于保险、福利等方面规定,如社保、医保等等,存在许多规章和规范性文件,即使一些专业人员也极易疏漏,普通劳动者更是无从知晓。当劳动者在权益受损害时可能根本不知道规定的存在,故也无法立即知晓权益受损,此时双方根本就没有争议状态的展现。如果采用“知道和应当知道”,特别是其中的“应当知道”去解释时效条款,时效便应从用人单位未按规定或约定履行义务之时开始计算,劳动者在不得知的情况下极易超过时效起诉,权益无法得到保护。第三、“应当知道”实质是一种对权利人知晓权益受损的事实推定,推定权利人知道权益受损,这种推定在民事法律理论上存在有其合理前提,因为双方是平等的,民事当事者有能力掌握、了解、知晓自己有什么权利及权利是否受损。而劳动者与用人单位存在实质的不平等,存在经济上、技术上、资源上、法律知识上的弱势,劳动者不具备用人单位那样的能力,双方就此方面存在实质不平等,故作此推定就失去了前提,故不应当作“应当知道”的解释。第四、争议是指双方对某一问题有分歧,双方直接以语言或行为表达意见的不一致,展现双方的异议、对抗、分歧,它的表现可分两种,一为劳动者主动要求权益而被用人单位拒绝,二为用人单位主动有损劳动者权益立即遭到劳动者反对、异议,此时双方的争议才发生,矛盾才展现和碰撞,劳动者此时也才明确得知权益可能受损,此时开始计算时效对劳动者更为有利。
(三)在劳动争议案件中应当限制调解的适用
社会法虽源于民事法律,但却排除当事者的完全意思自治,即某些权利义务不能由当事者完全自由约定,只能对部分权利义务予以约定,作为具有社会法属性的劳动法在此方面体现的是一种底线保护原则。对劳动者实行底线保护,即从各方面对劳动者权益作出最低限度的规定,以满足其作为一个社会成员存在的最低需求,如最低工资、最低福利、最低保险、人格尊严等等。笔者认为这种底线保护不仅体现在立法中,还应体现在司法过程中。立法体现即在法律中明确规定当事者的最低权益,代替当事者的约定,此部分含有公法性质,如劳动者的最低工资,生产者的产品质量责任等等;司法体现即指在司法过程中当事者亦无权通过诉讼行为对某些法定权利义务予以变更,如果允许在司法中变更,则立法上的底线保护就失去了意义。司法方面主要涉及的是诉讼中的调解行为,我国在审理劳动争议案件时适用的是民事诉讼法,并没有专门的劳动诉讼程序法,兼之劳动法律关系的权利义务有约定内容,另外案件审理还具有适用民事法律的可能,故从实体和程序角度看对案件予以调解均为正当。但此调解却不应完全等同于民事案件的调解,依民事诉讼法及其相关理论可知,调解是当事人平等自愿就权利义务达成协议的活动,调解的进行以平等为前提,调解需要意思自治和表达真实,而据本文前述,劳动者和用人单位之间在大多数情况下无法达到实质上的平等。在诉讼中,虽通过劳动者的起诉对二者关系有所改变但无法达至完全平等,劳动者在某些情况下仍处于弱势。笔者认为应对司法中的调解予以限制,在某些情况下不宜调解,主要分为两种情况,一为法定最低权益不得调解,凡是法律、法规、规章规定的劳动者应当得到的最低权益不得调解,法院只能径直裁判,劳动者即使在诉讼或诉前主动放弃权益亦无效,法院必须径直裁判。例如,用人单位拖欠劳动者的工资,劳动者诉求支付,法官予以调解,用人单位提出在月最低工资以下支付,此时就此部分不得予以调解;二为劳动者在诉讼后可能将会在用人单位继续工作或者再次就业、参加社会保险需要用人单位的必要协助,如索取档案资料、履历证明或者该行业具有就业方面的特殊性等等,此时劳动者的调解意思表达是否处于真实自愿就值得考察,因为用人单位将在诉讼后仍然对劳动的人身或权益予以限制、控制。笔者认为此时可由法官根据具体情况自由考察进而裁量,若判定劳动者无法完全表达真实意愿,就不予调解径直判决。