Law Applicable to Labor Relations: A Comparative Study of EU and Iranian Law

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Associate Professor, Department of Private Law, Faculty of Law and Political Sciences, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.

2 PhD Candidate in Private Law, Faculty of Law and Political Sciences, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.

Abstract

Problem Statement
Due to the increasing development of international trade and the free movement of labor and capital in recent decades, new issues and challenges have arisen in this area. In this regard, one of the most important issues is the conflict of laws where a worker and employer are related to more than one country. A worker may, for example, be employed by a foreign company, reside in two different countries, or perform his or her activities in different countries. Among these are transportation workers, international business agents, ship and plane services, as well as situations in which the employee is not working in a specified jurisdiction, such as in high seas installations.
Contrary to conflict rules governing the movement of capital at the international level, conflict rules governing labor are a relatively new phenomenon. Therefore, there is a lack of unity of approach among the different legal systems regarding the rules and solutions for resolving the conflict of laws governing employment contracts. Accordingly, Iran's Labor Procedure Act sets forth the rules of Iranian conflict rule applicable to labor relations.
When the labor relationship has an external element, it is necessary to determine the law that governs the dispute. Although the subject of the current research is pervasive, no comprehensive research has been conducted in this area of Iranian law. It is, however, noteworthy that Mahmoud Bagheri and Maryam Dunyaei, in an article titled "Analysis of determining the governing law in international labor contracts based on the duality of exchange and distributive justice", discuss the governing law of labor relations without mentioning any of Iran's relevant laws. Using comparative law studies and focusing on European private law, the authors of this article attempt to analyze this issue and propose appropriate solutions based on Iranian law.
Methodology
This research presents the results of a library study and a descriptive-analytical method based on a library study. A comprehensive evaluation of the physical and electronic authorities in English, French, and Farsi languages has been carried out.
Theoretical Framework
The theoretical framework of this study is grounded in the analysis of the conflict of laws applicable to employment contracts, comparing Iranian law with European Union (EU) law. The conflict of laws, also known as private international law, addresses which legal system and jurisdiction apply when the legal dispute involves a foreign element. In the context of employment contracts, this becomes crucial as labor mobility increases, especially in multinational enterprises.
This research draws upon the principles and rules of conflict of laws established under both Iranian and EU legal systems. In the EU, the Rome I Regulation provides a comprehensive framework for determining the applicable law, primarily favoring the law chosen by the parties, with safeguards to protect weaker parties like employees. Iranian law, however, attenuates party autonomy and favors prioritizing national law over foreign law, in the relations between Iranian nationals (even across the Iranian borders).
 Research Questions
In this article, the main question is how to resolve the problem of determining the conflict rules governing labor relations. As part of this main question, the following sub-questions are posed: (1) How is the domain of conflict rules governing labor relations determined? (2) What role does the party autonomy play in resolving the conflict of laws governing labor relations? (3) What are the conflict resolution rules governing the form of the employment contract and the capacity of the parties to the labor relation? (4) What is the role of mandatory and overriding provisions in labor relations?
Findings and Research Results
The main hypothesis of this article is that the problem of determining the conflict rule governing labor relations, in European law, is solved by referring to the law that governs the labor relationship according to the law determined based on objective factors of attachment stipulated in Article 8 of Rome 1 Regulation 2008. According to Iranian law, the conflict in question is essentially resolved based on the bilateral and multilateral conflict rules provided in Article 13 of the Labor Procedure Law (adopted in 2011).
This article proposes the following sub-hypotheses: (1) the domain of European and Iranian conflict resolution rules is resolved by reference to independent concepts and forum law, respectively. (2) In European law, party autonomy plays an important role in resolving the conflict between various laws governing labor relations, while in Iranian law, party autonomy does not play a significant role in resolving these issues. (3) Under Iranian law, the place of conclusion of an employment contract and the law of the country of the contracting party govern the form of the employment contract and the capacity of the parties to the employment relationship. (4) The parties to a labor relationship must comply with the law of the place where the employment is performed and the law of the forum, regardless of the law governing the relationship.
Considering that in many countries, legal scholars and judges have been responsible for creating rules of private international law, the main result of this study is to provide judicial guidance in resolving claims involving foreign elements through the presentation of new interpretations. The purpose of this research is to guide judges on a variety of issues relating to the conflict of laws governing labor relations.
 
 

Keywords

References

  1. منابع

    الف) فارسی

    1.  الماسی، نجادعلی (1370). تعارض قوانین. چ دوم. تهران: مرکز نشر دانشگاهی.
    2. الماسی، نجادعلی (1400). حقوق بین‌الملل خصوصی. چ بیستم، تهران: میزان.
    3. ایرانپور، فرهاد (1381). «شناسایی و یا انکار اصل حاکمیت اراده در حقوق بین‌الملل خصوصی ایران». مجلة دانشکده حقوق و علوم سیاسی، دورۀ 58، ش0، ص 75-91. در:

            https://jflps.ut.ac.ir/article_11108.html (7 مهرماه 1403)

    1. بادینی، حسن؛ بهنام شکوهی مشهدی (1399). «تأملی پیرامون ثبوت و اثبات در قرارداد کار با مطالعۀ تطبیقی در حقوق فرانسه». مجلة حقوقی دادگستری، دورۀ 84، ش 111، ص 23-45. DOI: 10.22106/jlj.2020.110823.2809
    2. باقری، محمود؛ مریم دنیایی (1396). «تحلیل تعیین قانون حاکم در قراردادهای کار بین‌المللی بر اساس ثنویت عدالت معاوضی و توزیعی». در: جمعی از نویسندگان، به کوشش رنجبریان، امیرحسین، حقوق؛ جانمایه بقای اجتماع: گفتارهای حقوقی در نکوداشت استاد سید عزت‌الله عراقی، تهران: سازمان مطالعه و تدوین کتب علوم انسانی دانشگاه‌ها.
    3. براتی‌نیا، محمود (1382). دیدگاه‌های نو در حقوق کار. تهران: فکرسازان.
    4. توازنی‌زاده، عباس (1389). «رسیدگی قضایی و اعمال قواعد حل تعارض در دعاوی ناشی از کار دریانوردی». فصلنامة تحقیقات حقوقی، دورۀ 13(ویژه‌نامة شمارة 3)، ص 379-413. در:

           «https://www.noormags.ir/view/fa/articlepage:1222382» (7 مهرماه 1403)

    1. شهیدی، مهدی (1377). «قواعد ایرانی تعیین قانون حاکم بر قراردادهای بین‌المللی خصوصی». فصلنامة تحقیقات حقوقی، 1(122)، ص 23-42. در:

         «https://www.noormags.ir/view/fa/articlepage:71800» (7 مهرماه 1403)

    1. شریعت‌باقری، محمدجواد (1396). حقوق بین‌الملل خصوصی. چ دوم، تهران: میزان.
    2. صفایی، سیدحسین (1402). مباحثی از حقوق بین‌الملل خصوصی. چ چهارم، تهران: میزان.
    3. عراقی، سیدعزت‌الله (1396). حقوق کار. ویرایش هجدهم، تهران: سمت.
    4. کاتوزیان، ناصر (1394). قواعد عمومی قراردادها. ج1، چ یازدهم، تهران: سهامی انتشار.
    5. کاتوزیان، ناصر (1399 [الف]). قواعد عمومی قراردادها. ج 5، چ سوم، تهران: گنج دانش.
    6. کاتوزیان، ناصر (1399 [ب]). قانون مدنی در نظم حقوقی کنونی. ویرایش پنجم، چ شصتم، تهران: میزان.
    7. کریمی، عباس و بهنام شکوهی مشهدی (1400). «بررسی زمان تأثیر بطلان در قرارداد کار». پژوهشنامة حقوق اسلامی، دورۀ 22، ش2، ص 471-498،   DOI:10.30497/law.2022.15099.2806   
    1. نجارزاده هنجنی، مجید (1398). "ملاک تمییز کارگر از کارمند در نظام حقوقی ایران". پژوهش حقوق عمومی. 21(64)، 217-232.   DOI: 10.22054/qjpl.2020.19073.1455
    1. هاشمی، سیدمحمد (1396). حقوق کار. چ اول، تهران: میزان.

    ب) خارجی

    19. Audit, B., D’avout, L. (2022), Droit international privé. 2nd ed., Paris: LGDJ.

    20. Beaumont, P.R., McEleavy, P.E. (2011). Anton’s Private International Law. 3rd ed., Edinburgh: W Green.

    21. Brainerd, C. (1959). “Notes on Methods and Objectives in the Conflict of Laws”. Duke Law Journal, Vol.2, pp.171–198.at: (https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=11603&context=journal_articles) (Accessed 19 March 2024)

    22. Cavalier, G., Upex, R. (2006). “The Concept of Employment Contract in European Union Private Law”. International & Comparative Law Quarterly. (vol. 55) no. 3. pp. 587-608. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/iclq/lei106

    23. Collins, L., Harris, J. (2018). Dicey, Morris, & Collins on The Conflict of Laws. 15th edn. London: Sweet & Maxwell.

    24. Comba, M. C. (2021). The Law Applicable to Cross-border Contracts involving Weaker Parties in EU Private International Law. Switzerland: Springer Cham

    025. Commission’s Green Paper and Communication (2006). Modernising Labour Law to Meet the Challenges of the 21st Century. COM 708 final. at:

    (https://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2004_2009/documents/com/com_com(2006)0708_/com_com(2006)0708_en.pdf) (Accessed 19 March 2024)

    26. e Vareilles-Sommières, P., Laval, S. (2023). Droit international privé. 11th ed., Paris: Dalloz.

    27. Duquesne, F. (2022). Droit du Travail: Les règles et les grands principes du droit du travail applicables en 2022. 17e ed., Gualino.

    28. Franzen, M. (2015). “Article 8. Individual Employment Contracts”. In: Calliess G-P (ed.) Rome regulations. Commentary, 2nd edn. Netherlands: Kluwer Law International.

    29. Fredman, S. (2004). “Marginalising Equal Pay Law”. Industrial Law Journal, (vol. 33) no. 3, pp.281-285.   DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ilj/33.3.281

    30. Giuliano, M., Lagarde P. (1980). Report on the Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations. Official Journal of the European Communities, pp.1-50. at:

     (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal- content/EN/TXT/? uri=   CELEX%3A31980Y1031%2801%29) (Accessed 19 March 2024)

    31. Junker, A. (2006). „Internationales Arbeitsrecht in der geplanten Rom I Verordnung“. Recht der internationalen Wirtschaft. 52.6. 401-. at:

     (https://online.ruw.de/suche/riw/International-Arbeitsrec-in-de-geplant-Ro-I-Verord-383306038afa605fafd1d60bbf5a4347) (Accessed 19 March 2024)

    32. Lagarde, P. (1986). “Le principe de proximité dans le droit international privé contemporain”. Recueil des cours de l'Académie de La Haye, 196. at:

     (https://www.scribd.com/document/509810879/Le-Principe-de-Proximite-Dans-Le-Droit-International-Prive-Contemporain-Cours-General-de-Droit-International-Prive-Volume-196-Brill) (Accessed 19 March 2024)

    33. Loussouarn, Y., Bourel, P., De Vareilles-Sommières, P. (2013). Droit International Privé. 10th éd., Paris: Dalloz

    34. Maxeiner, James R. (2010). Some realism about legal certainty in the globalization of the rule of law. The Rule of Law in Comparative Perspective. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. pp..41-55.

    35.Mayer, P., Heuzé, V., Remy, B. (2019). Droit international privé. 12th ed., Paris: LGDJ.

    36. Mazeaud H. et Chabas F. (2000). Leçons de Droit Civil: 1er v. Introduction à l'Étude du Droit. 12th ed., Paris: Montchrestien.

    37. Merrett, L. (2011). Employment Contracts in Private International Law. UK: Oxford.

    38. Moreno, P. G (2016). “Article 8: Individual Employment Contracts”. In: Magnus U., Mankowski, P. (eds.) Rome I Regulation - commentary. Verlag Dr. Otto Schmidt. Köln. pp. 577–599.

    39. Morse, C.G.J. (1982). in North P (ed.), Contract Conflicts: The EEC Convention on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations: A Comparative Study. North Holland Publishing Co.

    40. Niboyet, J. P. (1949). Cours de droit international privé français. 2nd ed., Paris: Librairie du Recuil Sirey.

    41. Patocchi, P. M. (1985). Règles de rattachement localisatrices et règles de rattachement à caractère substantiel: de quelques aspects récents de la diversification de la méthode conflictuelle en Europe. Thesis (doctoral). Faculté de droit de Genève.

    42. Plender, R., Wilderspin, M (2009). The European Private International Law of Obligations, 3rd ed., London: Sweet & Maxwell

    43.Reynolds, F.M.B. (1992). “Illegality by Lex Loci Solutionis”. Law Quarterly Review. 109. London: Sweet & Maxwell

    44. Sánchez, T.E. (2010). “The Spanish Law on Dependent Self-Employed Workers: A New Evolution in Labor Law”. Comparative Lab Law & Policy Journal, Vol.31, pp.231-248. at:(https://merit.url.edu/en/publications/the-spanish-waw-on-dependent-self-employed-workers-a-new-evolutio-2) (Accessed 19 March 2024)

    45.Sorge, S. (2009). “German Law on Dependent Self-Employed Workers: A comparison to the Current Situation Under Spanish Law”. Comparative Lab Law & Policy Journal,Vol. 31, pp,249-252. at:

       (https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=3136658) (Accessed 19 March 2024)

Law Quarterly
Volume 54, Issue 3
November 2024
Pages 311-339

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics