论美国联邦法院对承认及执行菲律宾船员劳动争议仲裁裁决的司法态度--以联邦法院近期判例为视角
|
摘要
通过对美国联邦法院近年针对承认及执行菲律宾船员劳动争议仲裁裁决案件的介绍和分析,总结了联邦法院对此议题的司法态度:包括维护联邦法院的管辖权、慎用公共政策原则、强调船员供养和医疗福利待遇的充足性以及重视仲裁程序的细节等。同时也阐明了菲律宾船员尝试突破仲裁裁决的技巧和可能选择的路径。最后指出联邦法院对此议题的态度仍然可能会因个案的具体情况有所变化,并提出因应之道。
The paper introduces and analyzes U. S. Federal Courts' decisions on the recognition and enforcement of the arbitral awards concerning the Philippine crew members' labor disputes in recent years. The Courts' positions are summarized in the paper as follows: confirming the U. S. Federal Courts' jurisdiction; applying public policy under narrow circumstances;underlying the maintenance and cure; emphasizing the details of the arbitration and/or settlement procedure. Further,the paper finds out the Philippine crew members' maneuvers to evade the binding arbitration award. Finally,the paper points out that the U. S. Federal Courts may change their position on case by case basis and suggests risk-prevention measures to the owners and operators who have hired or are going to hire the crew members from the Philippines.
The paper introduces and analyzes U. S. Federal Courts' decisions on the recognition and enforcement of the arbitral awards concerning the Philippine crew members' labor disputes in recent years. The Courts' positions are summarized in the paper as follows: confirming the U. S. Federal Courts' jurisdiction; applying public policy under narrow circumstances;underlying the maintenance and cure; emphasizing the details of the arbitration and/or settlement procedure. Further,the paper finds out the Philippine crew members' maneuvers to evade the binding arbitration award. Finally,the paper points out that the U. S. Federal Courts may change their position on case by case basis and suggests risk-prevention measures to the owners and operators who have hired or are going to hire the crew members from the Philippines.
引文
[1]胡伟峰.船员劳务合同纠纷仲裁裁决在美国联邦法院的承认与执行——卡斯特罗诉三海渔业公司案评析[EB/OL].(2017-10-12)[2018-03-01].http://www.ycseaman.com/bencandy.php?fid-90-id-129612-page-1.htm.
[2]MINKIN J,CIPRIAN J.Federal Court enforces foreign arbitral award resolving Jones Acts seaman’s personal injury claim[EB/OL].(2017-08-15)[2018-02-28].http://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com.
[3]Oslo University.Analyzing the POEA standard employment contract for seafarers[EB/OL].(2015-11-01)[2017-12-20].https://www.duo.uio.no/handle/10852/50065.
[4]王彦斌.美国第九巡回上诉法院对船员人身伤亡案件中惩罚性赔偿的最新态度[J].海事司法论坛,2018(1):74.
(1)Labor Code of the Philippines,Article 18:“No employer may hire a Filipino worker for overseas employment except through the Boards and entities authorized by the Secretary of Labor.Direct-hiring by members of the diplomatic corps,international organizations and such other employers as may be allowed by the Secretary of Labor is exempted from this provision.”
(2)在菲律宾,规模最大的海员工会为AMOSUP,即Associated Marine Officers and Seaman’s Union of Philippines。
(3)Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines,Article 8,Section 3:“The State shall promote the principle of shared responsibility between workers and employers and the preferential use of voluntary mode in setting dispute,including conciliation,and shall enforce their mutual compliance herewith to foster industrial peace.”
(4)Labor Code of the Philippines,Article 217:“The labor arbiters shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide…”
(5)参见2013 Performance Report of the National Labor Relations Commission(NLRC)。
(1)《纽约公约》第5条:“一、裁决仅在受裁决援用的一方当事人向申请承认及执行地的主管机关提出证据证明有下列情形之一时,才可以根据该当事人的请求拒绝承认和执行:(甲)第二条所提到的协议的当事人根据对其适用的法律处于某种无行为能力情形,或根据当事人约定的准据法协议无效,或未约定准据法时,依裁决地所在国法律协议无效;或(乙)作为裁决执行对象的当事人没有接获关于指派仲裁员或仲裁程序的适当通知,或由于其他情况而不能申辩案件;或(丙)裁决涉及仲裁协议所没有提到的,或者不包括仲裁协议规定之内的争议,或者裁决含有对仲裁协议范围以外事项的裁定。但如果仲裁协议范围以内的事项可以和仲裁协议范围以外的事项分开,则裁决中关于提交仲裁事项的部分决定可以承认及执行;或(丁)仲裁庭的组成或仲裁程序与当事人间协议不符,或当事人间没有协议时同仲裁地所在国法律不符者;或(戊)裁决对当事人尚无拘束力,或裁决已经由作出裁决的国家或据其法律作出裁决的国家的有权机关撤销或者停止执行。二、被请求承认和执行地所在国的主管机关如果查明有下列情形之一,也可以拒不承认和执行仲裁裁决:(甲)依据该国法律,争议事项不能以仲裁解决;(乙)承认或执行裁决违反该国公共政策。”
(2)United States Code,Title 9,Section 205:“Where the subject matter of an action or proceeding”pending in a State court relates to an arbitration agreement or award falling under the Convention,the defendant or the defendants may,at any time before the trial thereof,remove such action or proceeding to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place where the action or proceeding is pending.The procedure for removal of causes otherwise provided by law shall apply,except that the ground for removal provided in this section need not appear on the face of the complaint but may be shown in the petition for removal.For the purposes of Chapter 1 of this title any action or proceeding removed under this section shall be deemed to have been brought in the district court to which it is removed.”
(3)参见James Edward O’Connor v.Maritime Management Corp.,2017 WL 1018586(E.D.La.Mar.16,2017),相关评论可参阅Jason P.Minkin,Jonathan A.Ciprian:U.S.Federal Courts’Broad Jurisdiction Under the New York Convention,Kluwer Arbitration Blog,April 5,2017,http://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com。
(4)参见Beisler v.Weyler,284 F.3d 665,670(5th Cir.2002)。
(1)参见Acts 1958,No.125;Amended by Act 1962,No.471,§1;Acts 1988,No.934,§1,eff.Jan.1,1989;Acts 1989,No.117,§2;Acts 1992,No.584,§1;Redesignated from R.S.22:655 by Acts 2008,No.415,§1,eff.Jan.1,2009;Acts 2010,No.703,§1,eff.Jan.1,2011。
(2)参见Asignacion v.Rickmers Genoa Schiffahrtsgesellschaft mbH&Cie KG,783 F.3d 1010,1013(5th Cir.2015),该案中菲律宾船员在美国法院接连败诉后,2016年2月在船旗国马绍尔群岛提起诉讼,要求按照马绍尔群岛法律(因马绍尔群岛法律并入美国一般海商法)审理案件。2016年11月,马绍尔群岛高等法院以超过诉讼时效和一事不再理原则驳回了船员的起诉。该案件中,菲律宾船员既诉讼至美国联邦最高法院又同时在船旗国法院提起诉讼,具有研究的典型意义。关于该案中涉及马绍尔群岛法院审判部分的详细介绍可参阅王彦斌:《从Asignacion案看菲律宾船员对劳动仲裁裁决的突破及其应对》,发表于中国船东互保协会网站http://www.cpiweb.org/cpiwebmanager/pages/detail.jsp?id=2580,2018年5月7日。
(3)参见Castro v.Tri Marine Fish Co.,LLC,2017 WL 3262473。
(1)参见M/S Bremen v.Zapata Off-Shore Co.,407 U.S.1,9(1972)。
(2)参见Lauritzen v.Larsen,345 U.S.571(1953),美国联邦最高法院在这个案件中提出了以下七个考察法律适用的关键因素:(1)发生事故的地点(place of injury);(2)船旗(the vessel’s flag);(3)原告的住所地(plaintiff’s domicile or allegiance);(4)船东所属国家(shipowner’s allegiance);(5)合同签订地(place of contract);(6)外国法院管辖的可能(inaccessibility of a foreign forum);(7)法律适用情况(law of the forum)。在Lauritzen案中,一名丹麦籍海员在一艘丹麦旗船舶工作时于古巴受伤,并在美国对船东提起诉讼。有关劳动合同中写明法律适用为丹麦法。同时,联邦最高法院还指出,除了基于公共政策因素的考虑,应当尽量适用合同中双方意图适用的法律(excepts forbidden by some public policy,the tendency of the law is to apply in contract matters the law which the parties intended to apply)。同时,如果有关合同试图规避某种法律适用,那么结果将有所不同。例如针对一艘悬挂美国旗的船舶适用外国法(a different result would follow if the contract attempted to avoid applicable law,such as applying foreign law to a United States flagged ship)。因此,在这个案件中,美国联邦最高法院适用了丹麦法。美国联邦最高法院在随后的Hellenic Lines Ltd.v.Rhoditis,398 U.S.306(1970)中指出了另外一个需要考察的因素,即船东的经营基地(shipowner’s base of operations),也就是考察相关问题的第八个因素。需要注意的是,上述的八个因素并非是封闭和穷尽的,美国法院仍有可能考察其他的影响因素。
(3)参见Balen v.Holland America Line Inc.,583 F.3d 647,653-54(9th Cir.2009)。
(1)参见Parson&Whittemore Overseas Co.v.Societe Generale De L’Industrie Du Papier(RAKTA),508 F.2d 969,974(2d Cir.1974)。
(2)参见Navarette v.Silversea Cruises Ltd.,2016 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 46666(S.D.Fla.Mar.7,2016)。
(3)参见Delta Air Lines v.Air Line Pilots Ass’n,Intern.,861 F.2d 665,670(11th Cir.1988)。
(4)参见Carnival Cruise Lines,Inc.v.Shute,499 U.S.585(1991)。
(5)参见Lim v.Offshore Specialty Fabricators,Inc.,404 F.3d 898,900,906(5th Cir.2005)。
(6)参见Francisco v.Stolt Achievement Mt,293 F.3d 270,277-78(5th Cir.2002)。
(7)参见Atlantic Sounding Co.v.Townsend,557 U.S.404(2009),在该案中,船员Townsend在其雇主Atlantic Sounding所拥有的拖轮上工作时滑倒受伤,船东拒绝向船员支付供养和医疗福利待遇。船员提出索赔,并要求惩罚性赔偿,获得了美国联邦最高法院的支持。
(8)参见Aggarao v.MOL Ship Management Co.,2014 WL 3894079(D.Md.Aug.7,2014),该案最终在上诉至美国联邦第四巡回上诉法院的过程中达成庭外和解。
(1)分别是Mitsubishi Motors Corp.v.Soler Chrysler-Plymouth.Inc,473 U.S.(1985)以及Vimar Seguros y Reaseguros,S.A.v.M/V Sky Reefer,515 U.S.(1995)。相关案例分别涉及《谢尔曼法》(Sherman Act)和《海上货物运输法》(COGSA),均为成文法。
(2)即上文所提及Lauritzen案中需要考察的七个影响法律适用的因素。
(1)也有一些案例显示,经营基地(shipowner’s base of operation)足以作为确定适用《琼斯法》或者美国一般海商法的决定性因素:Szumlicz,698 F.2d at 1195-96。
[2]MINKIN J,CIPRIAN J.Federal Court enforces foreign arbitral award resolving Jones Acts seaman’s personal injury claim[EB/OL].(2017-08-15)[2018-02-28].http://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com.
[3]Oslo University.Analyzing the POEA standard employment contract for seafarers[EB/OL].(2015-11-01)[2017-12-20].https://www.duo.uio.no/handle/10852/50065.
[4]王彦斌.美国第九巡回上诉法院对船员人身伤亡案件中惩罚性赔偿的最新态度[J].海事司法论坛,2018(1):74.
(1)Labor Code of the Philippines,Article 18:“No employer may hire a Filipino worker for overseas employment except through the Boards and entities authorized by the Secretary of Labor.Direct-hiring by members of the diplomatic corps,international organizations and such other employers as may be allowed by the Secretary of Labor is exempted from this provision.”
(2)在菲律宾,规模最大的海员工会为AMOSUP,即Associated Marine Officers and Seaman’s Union of Philippines。
(3)Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines,Article 8,Section 3:“The State shall promote the principle of shared responsibility between workers and employers and the preferential use of voluntary mode in setting dispute,including conciliation,and shall enforce their mutual compliance herewith to foster industrial peace.”
(4)Labor Code of the Philippines,Article 217:“The labor arbiters shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide…”
(5)参见2013 Performance Report of the National Labor Relations Commission(NLRC)。
(1)《纽约公约》第5条:“一、裁决仅在受裁决援用的一方当事人向申请承认及执行地的主管机关提出证据证明有下列情形之一时,才可以根据该当事人的请求拒绝承认和执行:(甲)第二条所提到的协议的当事人根据对其适用的法律处于某种无行为能力情形,或根据当事人约定的准据法协议无效,或未约定准据法时,依裁决地所在国法律协议无效;或(乙)作为裁决执行对象的当事人没有接获关于指派仲裁员或仲裁程序的适当通知,或由于其他情况而不能申辩案件;或(丙)裁决涉及仲裁协议所没有提到的,或者不包括仲裁协议规定之内的争议,或者裁决含有对仲裁协议范围以外事项的裁定。但如果仲裁协议范围以内的事项可以和仲裁协议范围以外的事项分开,则裁决中关于提交仲裁事项的部分决定可以承认及执行;或(丁)仲裁庭的组成或仲裁程序与当事人间协议不符,或当事人间没有协议时同仲裁地所在国法律不符者;或(戊)裁决对当事人尚无拘束力,或裁决已经由作出裁决的国家或据其法律作出裁决的国家的有权机关撤销或者停止执行。二、被请求承认和执行地所在国的主管机关如果查明有下列情形之一,也可以拒不承认和执行仲裁裁决:(甲)依据该国法律,争议事项不能以仲裁解决;(乙)承认或执行裁决违反该国公共政策。”
(2)United States Code,Title 9,Section 205:“Where the subject matter of an action or proceeding”pending in a State court relates to an arbitration agreement or award falling under the Convention,the defendant or the defendants may,at any time before the trial thereof,remove such action or proceeding to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place where the action or proceeding is pending.The procedure for removal of causes otherwise provided by law shall apply,except that the ground for removal provided in this section need not appear on the face of the complaint but may be shown in the petition for removal.For the purposes of Chapter 1 of this title any action or proceeding removed under this section shall be deemed to have been brought in the district court to which it is removed.”
(3)参见James Edward O’Connor v.Maritime Management Corp.,2017 WL 1018586(E.D.La.Mar.16,2017),相关评论可参阅Jason P.Minkin,Jonathan A.Ciprian:U.S.Federal Courts’Broad Jurisdiction Under the New York Convention,Kluwer Arbitration Blog,April 5,2017,http://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com。
(4)参见Beisler v.Weyler,284 F.3d 665,670(5th Cir.2002)。
(1)参见Acts 1958,No.125;Amended by Act 1962,No.471,§1;Acts 1988,No.934,§1,eff.Jan.1,1989;Acts 1989,No.117,§2;Acts 1992,No.584,§1;Redesignated from R.S.22:655 by Acts 2008,No.415,§1,eff.Jan.1,2009;Acts 2010,No.703,§1,eff.Jan.1,2011。
(2)参见Asignacion v.Rickmers Genoa Schiffahrtsgesellschaft mbH&Cie KG,783 F.3d 1010,1013(5th Cir.2015),该案中菲律宾船员在美国法院接连败诉后,2016年2月在船旗国马绍尔群岛提起诉讼,要求按照马绍尔群岛法律(因马绍尔群岛法律并入美国一般海商法)审理案件。2016年11月,马绍尔群岛高等法院以超过诉讼时效和一事不再理原则驳回了船员的起诉。该案件中,菲律宾船员既诉讼至美国联邦最高法院又同时在船旗国法院提起诉讼,具有研究的典型意义。关于该案中涉及马绍尔群岛法院审判部分的详细介绍可参阅王彦斌:《从Asignacion案看菲律宾船员对劳动仲裁裁决的突破及其应对》,发表于中国船东互保协会网站http://www.cpiweb.org/cpiwebmanager/pages/detail.jsp?id=2580,2018年5月7日。
(3)参见Castro v.Tri Marine Fish Co.,LLC,2017 WL 3262473。
(1)参见M/S Bremen v.Zapata Off-Shore Co.,407 U.S.1,9(1972)。
(2)参见Lauritzen v.Larsen,345 U.S.571(1953),美国联邦最高法院在这个案件中提出了以下七个考察法律适用的关键因素:(1)发生事故的地点(place of injury);(2)船旗(the vessel’s flag);(3)原告的住所地(plaintiff’s domicile or allegiance);(4)船东所属国家(shipowner’s allegiance);(5)合同签订地(place of contract);(6)外国法院管辖的可能(inaccessibility of a foreign forum);(7)法律适用情况(law of the forum)。在Lauritzen案中,一名丹麦籍海员在一艘丹麦旗船舶工作时于古巴受伤,并在美国对船东提起诉讼。有关劳动合同中写明法律适用为丹麦法。同时,联邦最高法院还指出,除了基于公共政策因素的考虑,应当尽量适用合同中双方意图适用的法律(excepts forbidden by some public policy,the tendency of the law is to apply in contract matters the law which the parties intended to apply)。同时,如果有关合同试图规避某种法律适用,那么结果将有所不同。例如针对一艘悬挂美国旗的船舶适用外国法(a different result would follow if the contract attempted to avoid applicable law,such as applying foreign law to a United States flagged ship)。因此,在这个案件中,美国联邦最高法院适用了丹麦法。美国联邦最高法院在随后的Hellenic Lines Ltd.v.Rhoditis,398 U.S.306(1970)中指出了另外一个需要考察的因素,即船东的经营基地(shipowner’s base of operations),也就是考察相关问题的第八个因素。需要注意的是,上述的八个因素并非是封闭和穷尽的,美国法院仍有可能考察其他的影响因素。
(3)参见Balen v.Holland America Line Inc.,583 F.3d 647,653-54(9th Cir.2009)。
(1)参见Parson&Whittemore Overseas Co.v.Societe Generale De L’Industrie Du Papier(RAKTA),508 F.2d 969,974(2d Cir.1974)。
(2)参见Navarette v.Silversea Cruises Ltd.,2016 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 46666(S.D.Fla.Mar.7,2016)。
(3)参见Delta Air Lines v.Air Line Pilots Ass’n,Intern.,861 F.2d 665,670(11th Cir.1988)。
(4)参见Carnival Cruise Lines,Inc.v.Shute,499 U.S.585(1991)。
(5)参见Lim v.Offshore Specialty Fabricators,Inc.,404 F.3d 898,900,906(5th Cir.2005)。
(6)参见Francisco v.Stolt Achievement Mt,293 F.3d 270,277-78(5th Cir.2002)。
(7)参见Atlantic Sounding Co.v.Townsend,557 U.S.404(2009),在该案中,船员Townsend在其雇主Atlantic Sounding所拥有的拖轮上工作时滑倒受伤,船东拒绝向船员支付供养和医疗福利待遇。船员提出索赔,并要求惩罚性赔偿,获得了美国联邦最高法院的支持。
(8)参见Aggarao v.MOL Ship Management Co.,2014 WL 3894079(D.Md.Aug.7,2014),该案最终在上诉至美国联邦第四巡回上诉法院的过程中达成庭外和解。
(1)分别是Mitsubishi Motors Corp.v.Soler Chrysler-Plymouth.Inc,473 U.S.(1985)以及Vimar Seguros y Reaseguros,S.A.v.M/V Sky Reefer,515 U.S.(1995)。相关案例分别涉及《谢尔曼法》(Sherman Act)和《海上货物运输法》(COGSA),均为成文法。
(2)即上文所提及Lauritzen案中需要考察的七个影响法律适用的因素。
(1)也有一些案例显示,经营基地(shipowner’s base of operation)足以作为确定适用《琼斯法》或者美国一般海商法的决定性因素:Szumlicz,698 F.2d at 1195-96。