Social Justice and Humanism as Axiological Principles of Labor Law and the Concept of the Quality of Working Life

Abstract

In the context of the intensification of the integration processes of the Russian Federation and the Republic of Belarus, the focus of legal integration on the harmonization and even unification of labor legislation, it seems relevant to address the legal issues of decent work and ensuring the quality of life of citizens of both states, the convergence of state minimum social standards. The main attention in the article is given to such initial axiological legal principles that play a leading role in ensuring decent work and the quality of work life as social justice and humanism in the social and labor sphere, which determines the structure of this article. The problem of quality of life is interdisciplinary. It has not only a legal, but also an economic, sociological, socio-cultural, general philosophical context. Therefore, in the article, along with general scientific and special legal methods, an interdisciplinary approach is widely used. The authors aim is, based on doctrinal developments, normative material and its comparative analysis, to deepen the understanding of the ideas of social justice and humanism in the social and labor sphere, which underlie the legal program of decent work and the concept of the quality of work life with the development of proposals for improving the labor legislation of Russia and Belarus.

Legal Framework Regulating Termination of Employment Relationship and Its Challenges in the Republic of Latvia. Summary of the Doctoral Thesis

“…In order for Article 101(1)(1) of the LL to apply, the employer must have three elements in place at the same time, which must be equally understood by both the employer and the employee: 1) the employee has breached the employment contract or the specified working procedures (the provisions of the job instructions recorded by the employer in the inspection report 72 constitute grounds for termination of the employment contract under Article 101(1)(1) of the LL); 2) the breach has been committed without justifiable reason (the employer has recorded the fact that the employee systematically fails to report to work without justifiable reason; 73 3) the breach is significant (the employer has provided reasons for the significance of the breach committed by the employee). 74 Whether a breach is to be considered significant must be assessed on a case-by-case basis, since the concept of "significance" is vague and the legislator has left it to the discretion of the person applying the legal norm to determine its content. In order for an employee's breach to be regarded as significant, the employer must prove that, by flagrantly disregarding the provisions of the contract of employment or the working procedures, the employee has caused, or could otherwise have caused, damage to the employer, affected the normal course of work or had some other adverse effect 75 (maintaining a rude and disrespectful working relationship with colleagues and customers during working hours, which has led to the improper performance of direct duties, endangering the safety of transport, loss of special tools, endangering the integrity of transport).…”

“…359 of 28 April 2009 "Labour Protection Requirements in Workplaces". 94 In order to terminate an employee's employment relationship pursuant to Article 101(1)(5) of the LL, it is necessary to establish two concurrent elements: (1) the employee has breached labour protection regulations; (2) the breach of labour protection regulations is gross;…”

“…On 27 January 2014 the Latgale Regional Court 95 examined and found that there are no grounds to invalidate the employer's notice to the claimant under Article 101(1)(5) of the LL, as the claimant admits and there is no dispute in the case that he took the client's tractor at the construction site without the employer's permission and drove it to a remote village shop after leaving the construction site and came back to the construction site. 94 One of the tasks of Article 101 (5)(1) of the LL is to draw the attention of employees to the need to comply with the requirements laid down for the protection of their health and safety and to preserve their ability to work, thereby pointing out the possible consequences of non-compliance. If the employer has fulfilled its obligations, but the employee themselves fails to comply with any of the requirements laid down and endangers themselves and others, such conduct is incompatible with the continuation of the employment relationship.…”

“…Judgement of the Riga Regional Court, Panel of the Court of Civil Appeals, of 9 May 2017 in Case No. C32219716 74. Judgement of the Riga Regional Court, Panel of the Court of Civil Appeals, of 29 June 2015 in Case No.…”

Darba tiesisko attiecību izbeigšanās tiesiskais regulējums un tā problemātika Latvijas Republikā. Promocijas darbs

“…Lai dokumentam būtu juridisks spēks, tajā iekļauj šādus rekvizītus: 1) dokumenta autoru nosaukums; 2) dokumenta datums; 3) paraksts. 175 Darbiniekam uzteikumā nav jānorāda uzteikuma iemesls, vien ieteicams atsaukties uz DL 100. pantu, norādot attiecīgo panta daļu.…”