广州市劳动关系三方协商规定
广东省广州市人大常委会
广州市第十三届人民代表大会常务委员会公告第100号
广州市第十三届人民代表大会常务委员会第四十四次会议于2011年9月22日通过的《广州市劳动关系三方协商规定》，业经广东省第十一届人民代表大会常务委员会第三十次会议于2011年11月30日批准，现予公布，自2012年1月1日起施行。
广州市人民代表大会常务委员会
2011年12月14日
广州市劳动关系三方协商规定
（2011年9月22日广州市第十三届人民代表大会常务委员会第四十四次会议通过 2011年11月30日广东省第十一届人民代表大会常务委员会第三十次会议批准 2011年12月14日公布 自2012年1月1日起施行）
第一条 为建立、健全劳动关系三方协商机制，促进劳动关系和谐稳定，根据《中华人民共和国劳动法》、《中华人民共和国劳动合同法》、《中华人民共和国工会法》和其他有关法律法规的规定，结合本市实际，制定本规定。
第二条 本规定适用于本市行政区域内县级以上人民政府劳动行政主管部门会同工会和企业方面代表建立劳动关系三方协商会议制度，共同研究解决劳动关系方面重大问题、协调劳动关系集体协商争议等方面的活动。
第三条 市、区、县级市应当建立劳动关系三方协商会议制度。
市、区、县级市人民政府应当对三方协商会议工作所需经费予以保障。
第四条 三方协商会议由同级劳动行政主管部门、总工会和企业代表组织派出相同数目的人员组成。企业代表组织由企业联合会和工商联共同出任，区、县级市没有企业联合会的，由区、县级市工商联作为企业代表组织参加会议。
第五条 劳动行政主管部门负责三方协商会议制度的组织实施，承担三方协商会议的筹备、召集、主持等工作。三方协商会议办公室设在劳动行政主管部门，负责日常事务工作。
三方协商会议的内容涉及其他行政管理部门的，劳动行政主管部门应当在会前征求相关行政管理部门的意见。
第六条 总工会应当参加三方协商会议，代表劳动者的利益，表达劳动者的要求，维护劳动者的合法权益。
总工会应当在会前充分征求基层工会和劳动者的意见，并在会议中反映这些意见。总工会派出的人员中应当有女职工委员会的代表或者女职工代表。
第七条 企业代表组织应当参加三方协商会议，代表用人单位的利益，表达用人单位的要求，维护用人单位的合法权益。
企业联合会和工商联应当在会前充分征求未参加会议的商会、私营企业协会、个体劳动者协会、行业协会等社会团体的意见，并在会议中反映这些意见。
第八条 市、区、县级市三方协商会议主要履行下列职责：
（一）研究分析本行政区域的劳动关系状况及发展趋势，对最低工资、工作时间和休息休假、社会保障等带有全局性的劳动关系方面的重大问题进行协商，提出政策性意见和建议；
（二）促进调整劳动关系方面的法律、法规、规章和政策在本行政区域的实施，对制定、修改劳动关系方面的法律、法规、规章和政策提出意见和建议；
（三）对本行政区域具有重大影响的集体劳动争议进行调查研究，提出预防和解决劳动争议的意见和建议；
（四）推进集体协商和集体合同制度在本行政区域实施；
（五）推进本行政区域的用人单位与劳动者通过工资集体协商，建立和完善合理工资形成机制、工资正常调整机制和工资支付保障机制；
(六)定期向同级人民政府提出制定区域或者行业内企业工资指导线的建议；
（七）指导本行政区域的劳动关系双方依法开展集体协商，对用人单位与劳动者发生的劳动关系集体协商争议进行调停；
（八）依法维护本行政区域劳动关系集体协商代表的权益；
（九）法律、法规规定的其他职责。
市三方协商会议应当指导和督促区、县级市三方协商会议开展工作。
第九条 三方协商会议分为定期和临时会议。定期会议每半年至少召开一次。遇有重大事项,经过三方协商会议中的两方以上同意，可以召开临时会议。会议时间、地点、形式由三方协商确定。
第十条 定期会议召开前，三方协商会议办公室应当组织三方成员议定会议议题，并在会议召开的十五日前将会议议题和相关材料印发与会人员。在定期会议上，各方还应当通报履行本规定第八条规定职责的情况。
临时会议召开前，三方协商会议办公室应当将会议议题和相关材料提前三日印发与会人员。
三方协商会议办公室应当在会议召开前将会议议题在劳动行政主管部门网站上公布。
第十一条 三方协商会议根据议题涉及的具体内容，经三方协商会议中的两方以上同意，可以邀请相关行政管理部门、社会团体或者研究机构等方面的人员列席会议。
商会、行业（产业）协会等社会团体认为会议议题与自身有重大利害关系的，可以申请列席三方协商会议，经三方协商会议中的两方以上同意，可以列席会议。
第十二条 三方协商会议的各方有权充分发表意见，对议题进行讨论协商。列席会议的人员可以就议题内容发表意见。
三方协商会议应当制作会议记录，全面、客观记载会议情况，并经全体与会人员签字。
第十三条 三方协商会议各方经平等协商达成一致意见的，由劳动行政主管部门或者会议确定的起草方负责起草会议文书，交与会三方签字盖章后印发同级工会、企业代表组织和用人单位。
劳动行政主管部门应当将三方协商会议制作的会议文书报送同级人民政府，并通报给相关行政管理部门。
三方协商会议办公室应当及时向社会公布三方协商会议制作的会议文书及其执行情况。
第十四条 劳动行政主管部门应当将三方协商会议文书作为本部门制定、实施劳动关系方面相关政策、措施的重要参考。工会和企业代表组织应当督促各自成员自觉接受三方协商会议文书的指导。实施情况应当在下一次定期会议上予以通报。
第十五条 三方协商会议应当综合经济社会发展状况、消费者物价指数、企业职工工资水平和人工成本、行业发展状况等因素，向同级人民政府提出工资指导线调整的意见和建议。
劳动行政主管部门会同同级发改委、财政局、国资委、统计局等相关行政管理部门研究制定区域或者行业内企业工资指导线时，应当根据上一统计年度数据，并参考同级三方协商会议的建议。工资指导线应当报同级人民政府批准后在每年的第一季度公布。
第十六条 用人单位工会或者上级工会可以组织劳动者与用人单位开展集体协商，行业（产业）工会可以与行业（产业）协会开展集体协商，区域性基层工会联合会可以与区域性企业代表组织开展集体协商。
劳动者与用人单位应当依法开展集体协商。
第十七条劳动关系集体协商过程中出现下列情形之一的，争议双方均可以向三方协商会议办公室提出调停申请：
（一）签订集体合同过程中发生争议的；
（二）因重大意见分歧导致集体协商无法继续进行的；
（三）出现集体停工、怠工的；
（四）出现其他需要调停的情形的。
用人单位发生劳动者集体停工、怠工事件，当事人未提出调停申请的，用人单位所在地的区、县级市三方协商会议应当主动进行调停。
第十八条用人单位或者劳动者的调停申请应当向用人单位所在地的区、县级市三方协商会议办公室提出。行业（产业）协会、行业（产业）工会、区域性企业代表组织或者区域性基层工会联合会的调停申请应当向其所在地的区、县级市三方协商会议办公室提出。行业（产业）协会与行业（产业）工会所在地不一致的，向市三方协商会议办公室提出调停申请。
三方协商会议办公室发现调停申请不属于本会受理范围的，应当告知申请人向有受理权的三方协商会议办公室提出，已经受理申请的，应当移送有受理权的三方协商会议办公室，并书面告知申请人。
三方协商会议调停劳动关系集体协商争议，不收取任何费用。
第十九条 市、区、县级市三方协商会议办公室收到调停申请后，根据争议的实际情况，可以指定一名或者数名调停员进行调停。
第二十条 出现本规定第十七条第一项和第二项规定情形的，三方协商会议办公室应当自收到调停申请之日起二日内，派出调停员进行调停。
出现本规定第十七条第三项规定情形的，三方协商会议办公室应当在收到调停申请后立即指派调停员进行调停。
出现本规定第十七条第四项规定情形的，三方协商会议办公室应当自收到调停申请之日起三日内，派出调停员进行调停。
第二十一条 市三方协商会议可以在劳动行政主管部门、总工会、企业代表组织的工作人员和律师、人民调解员、学者等专业人员中聘请公道正派、熟悉劳动关系集体协商争议协调工作的人员担任调停员。调停员名单应当经市三方协商会议讨论通过，并应当向社会公布。
市三方协商会议办公室负责调停员的资格审查和日常管理，定期对调停员进行业务培训。
市三方协商会议应当制定调停员工作规范和管理办法。
第二十二条 调停员应当履行下列职责:
（一）调查了解用人单位与劳动者进行集体协商和签订集体合同过程中产生争议的情况，分析和评估事态;
（二）组织劳动关系双方平等、有序协商，或者参与政府组织的劳动关系双方协商;
（三）提出争议解决建议，帮助当事人自愿达成调停协议；
（四）向三方协商会议办公室报告调停情况。
第二十三条 调停员应当在当事人自愿、平等的基础上通过说服、疏导等方法进行调停，并遵循下列原则：
（一）客观、公正、中立；
（二）不违反法律、法规和国家政策；
（三）尊重当事人的权利，不得因调停而阻止当事人依法通过仲裁、行政、司法等途径维护自己的权利。
第二十四条 调停员所在单位应当支持调停员从事调停工作。
调停员从事调停工作，应当由本级财政根据实际情况给予适当的补贴。补贴标准由市人民政府另行制定。
第二十五条 劳动关系争议经调停，双方达成一致意见的，调停员应当指导双方签订集体合同或者调停协议书。
经调停，争议双方无法达成一致意见的，调停员可以终止调停。
调停员应当在调停活动结束之日起五日内向三方协商会议办公室提交调停报告。调停报告应当印发争议双方。
第二十六条 参加劳动关系集体协商和申请、参加集体协商争议调停的劳动者的合法权益受法律保护，无正当理由，用人单位不得调整其工作岗位、免除其职务、降低其职级或者工资福利待遇、解除其劳动合同。
第二十七条 劳动行政主管部门和三方协商会议办公室派员对同一劳动关系集体协商争议开展协调或者调停工作时，由劳动行政主管部门负责主持调停活动。
第二十八条 劳动行政主管部门或者其他有关行政管理部门及其工作人员违反本规定不履行职责的，由所在单位、任免机关或者监察机关对直接负责的主管人员和其他直接责任人员，按照管理权限进行处理。
工会组织及其工作人员违反本规定不履行职责的，由同级工会或者上级工会责令改正；情节严重的，依照《中国工会章程》对直接负责的工作人员予以撤换或者罢免。
企业代表组织及其工作人员违反本规定不履行职责的，由市三方协商会议责令改正。
第二十九条用人单位或者劳动者在提起、开展集体协商或者参与调停活动时采用暴力、胁迫或者其他非法手段，扰乱所在单位秩序致使工作、生产不能正常进行或者扰乱公共秩序的，由公安部门依照《中华人民共和国治安管理处罚法》的有关规定处罚；构成犯罪的，依法追究刑事责任。
第三十条 调停员违反本规定第二十三条规定的，由市三方协商会议给予批评教育、责令改正；情节严重的，予以解聘。
第三十一条 镇、街道建立三方协商会议制度，参照执行本规定。
第三十二条 本规定自2012年1月1日起施行。
Chapter VI
General Rules of Evidence
under the WTO Jurisprudence
OUTLINE
I Burden of Proof under the WTO Jurisprudence
(ⅰ) General Rules Well Established in Violation Complaints
(ⅱ) Burden of Proof in case of Invoking an Exception
(ⅲ) Special Rules Concerning Non-Violation Claims
(ⅳ) Summary and Conclusions
II Admissibility of Certain Evidences
(ⅰ) Evidence Obtained from Prior Consultations
(a) Procedural Concern: Confidentiality of Consultations
(b) Substantial Concern: Necessity or Relevance of Evidence
(ⅱ) Arguments before Domestic Investigative Authorities
(ⅲ) Arguments Submitted after the First Substantive Meeting
(a) There is a significant difference between the claims and the arguments supporting those claims.
(b)There is no provision establishing precise deadlines for the presentation of evidence.
III Panel’s Right to Seek Information
(ⅰ) A Grant of Discretionary Authority
(ⅱ) The Admissibility of Non-requested Information
(ⅲ) Summary and Conclusions
IV Adverse Inferences from Party’s Refusal to Provide Information Requested
(ⅰ) The Authority of a Panel to Request Information from a Party to the Dispute
(ⅱ) The Duty of a Member to Comply with the Request of a Panel to Provide Information
(ⅲ) The Drawing of Adverse Inferences from the Refusal of a Party to Provide Information Requested by the Panel
V Concluding Remarks
I Burden of Proof under the WTO Jurisprudence
Generally, the question of whether a member acted in accordance with the agreement hinges frequently on whether and to what extent that member must demonstrate compliance or the complaint must demonstrate a lack of compliance. It is demonstrated that the burden of proof is a procedural concept which speaks to the fair and orderly management and disposition of a dispute. This is the issue of “the ultimate burden of proof for establishing a claim or a defence”. In this respect, the Panel Report on US-Copyright Act (DS160) states, “[w]hile a duty rests on all parties to produce evidence and to cooperate in presenting evidence to the Panel, this is an issue that has to be distinguished from the question of who bears the ultimate burden of proof for establishing a claim or a defence”.1
(i) General Rules Well Established in Violation Complaints
Art. 3.8 of the DSU provides that in cases where there is an infringement of the obligations assumed under a covered agreement -- that is, in cases where a violation is established -- there is a presumption of nullification or impairment. However, the issue of burden of proof here is not what happens after a violation is established; the issue is which party must first show that there is, or is not, a violation. In this respect, a number of GATT 1947 panel reports contain language supporting the proposition that the burden of establishing a violation under Article XXIII:1(a) of the GATT 1947 was on the complaining party, i.e., it was for the complaining party to present a prima facie case of violation before a panel. This rule is taken on by the DSB.
With regard to the issue of burden of proof, the Appellate Body in US-Shirts and Blouses (DS33) rules that: “In addressing this issue, we find it difficult, indeed, to see how any system of judicial settlement could work if it incorporated the proposition that the mere assertion of a claim might amount to proof. It is, thus, hardly surprising that various international tribunals, including the International Court of Justice, have generally and consistently accepted and applied the rule that the party who asserts a fact, whether the claimant or the respondent, is responsible for providing proof thereof. Also, it is a generally-accepted canon of evidence in civil law, common law and, in fact, most jurisdictions, that the burden of proof rests upon the party, whether complaining or defending, who asserts the affirmative of a particular claim or defence. If that party adduces evidence sufficient to raise a presumption that what is claimed is true, the burden then shifts to the other party, who will fail unless it adduces sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption.” 2And this ruling is demonstrated to be well established in subsequent cases as a general rule concerning burden of proof.
For example, in Argentina-Leather (DS155), the Panel states: “The relevant rules concerning burden of proof, while not expressly provided for in the DSU, are well established in WTO jurisprudence. The general rule is set out in the Appellate Body report on United States - Measure Affecting Imports of Woven Wool Shirts and Blouses, wherein it is stated that: ‘It is a generally-accepted canon of evidence in civil law, common law and, in fact, most jurisdictions, that the burden of proof rests upon the party, whether complaining or defending, who asserts the affirmative of a particular claim or defence. If that party adduces evidence sufficient to raise a presumption that what is claimed is true, the burden then shifts to the other party, who will fail unless it adduces sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption’.” 3
And in US-Cotton Yarn (DS192), the Panel rules in pertinent part: “The Appellate Body and subsequent panels endorsed this principle that a complainant bears the burden of proof. For example, the Appellate Body, in EC - Hormones, states as follows: ‘… The initial burden lies on the complaining party, which must establish a prima facie case of inconsistency with a particular provision of the SPS Agreement on the part of the defending party, or more precisely, of its SPS measure or measures complained about. When that prima facie case is made, the burden of proof moves to the defending party, which must in turn counter or refute the claimed inconsistency. This seems straightforward enough and is in conformity with our ruling in United States - Shirts and Blouses, which the Panel invokes and which embodies a rule applicable in any adversarial proceedings.’” 4
As a whole, on the one hand, as ruled by the Panel in Argentina-Ceramic Floor Tiles (DS189), “[w]e recall that the burden of proof in WTO dispute settlement proceedings rests with the party that asserts the affirmative of a particular claim or defence. It implies that the complaining party will be required to make a prima facie case of violation of the relevant provisions of the WTO Agreement, which is for the defendant…to refute. In this regard, the Appellate Body has stated that ‘... a prima facie case is one which, in the absence of effective refutation by the defending party, requires a panel, as a matter of law, to rule in favour of the complaining party presenting the prima facie case’…”; 5 on the other hand, as noted in the Panel Report on US-Copyright Act (DS160), “[t]he same rules apply where the existence of a specific fact is alleged. We note that a party who asserts a fact, whether the claimant or the respondent, is responsible for providing proof thereof. It is for the party alleging the fact to prove its existence. It is then for the other party to submit evidence to the contrary if it challenges the existence of that fact”. 6
In sum, with respect to the general rules of burden of proof in the context of violation complaints, as ruled by the Panel in Japan-Film (DS44): “[w]e note that as in all cases under the WTO/GATT dispute settlement system - and, indeed, as the Appellate Body recently stated, under most systems of jurisprudence - it is for the party asserting a fact, claim or defence to bear the burden of providing proof thereof. Once that party has put forward sufficient evidence to raise a presumption that what is claimed is true, the burden of producing evidence then shifts to the other party to rebut the presumption.…”. 7Certainly, as noted by the Appellate Body in US-Shirts and Blouses (DS33), “[i]n the context of the GATT 1994 and the WTO Agreement precisely how much and precisely what kind of evidence will be required to establish such a presumption will necessarily vary from measure to measure, provision to provision and case to case”.8
(ii) Burden of Proof in case of Invoking an Exception
As discussed above, generally, the burden of proof rests upon the party, whether complaining or defending, who asserts a fact or the affirmative of a particular claim or defence. As to be shown, this rule applies equally even in case of invoking an exception.
In this context, it is a general principle of law, well-established by panels in prior GATT/WTO practice, that the party (the defendant) which invokes an exception in order to justify its action carries the burden of proof that it has fulfilled the conditions for invoking the exception. However, in the author’s view, to understand the issue concerning burden of proof in case of invoking an exception, which is different from the relatively clear burden of establishing a prima facie case of violation on the complaining party, it’s helpful to stress some points here, among which the key point is to be cautious while determine which defence is “affirmative” and therefore burdens the defendant to provide sufficient evidence to rebut the challenged violation.
In United States-Shirts and Blouses (DS33), India argues that it was “customary GATT practice” that the party invoking a provision which had been identified as an exception must offer proof that the conditions set out in that provision were met. The Appellate Body acknowledges that several GATT 1947 and WTO panels have required such proof of a party invoking a defence, such as those found in Art. XX or Art. XI:2(c)(i), to a claim of violation of a GATT obligation, such as those found in Arts. I:1, II:1, III or XI:1. Arts. XX and XI:(2)(c)(i) are limited exceptions from obligations under certain other provisions of the GATT 1994, not positive rules establishing obligations in themselves. They are in the nature of affirmative defences. It is only reasonable that the burden of establishing such a defence, i.e. invoking an exception in the nature of affirmative defences, should rest on the party asserting it. 9
However, as ruled by the Appellate Body in EC-Hormones (DS26/DS48), “[t]he general rule in a dispute settlement proceeding requiring a complaining party to establish a prima facie case of inconsistency with a provision of …[the covered agreements] before the burden of showing consistency with that provision is taken on by the defending party, is not avoided by simply describing that same provision as an ‘exception’. In much the same way, merely characterizing a treaty provision as an ‘exception’ does not by itself justify a ‘stricter’ or ‘narrower’ interpretation of that provision than would be warranted by examination of the ordinary meaning of the actual treaty words, viewed in context and in the light of the treaty's object and purpose, or, in other words, by applying the normal rules of treaty interpretation. It is also well to remember that a prima facie case is one which, in the absence of effective refutation by the defending party, requires a panel, as a matter of law, to rule in favour of the complaining party presenting the prima facie case.” 10
In short, during the process of the establishment of a violation, it’s generally up to the complainant to provide evidence concerning inconsistency, and only in case of limited exceptions the burden of proof rests upon the defending party invoking a defence in the nature of affirmative defences, such as those found in Art. XX or Art. XI:2(c)(i) of the GATT 1994.
(iii) Special Rules Concerning Non-Violation Claims
As suggested by the corresponding provisions, the most significant difference between violation complaints under Art. XXIII:1(a) of the GATT 1994 and non-violation ones under Art. XXIII:1(b) is, while, when violation complaints are brought under Art. XXIII:1(a), the infringement of an obligation of the agreements is considered prima facie to constitute a case of nullification or impairment, from the fact of violation alone, by establishing a formal presumption, such a presumption does not exist in non-violation cases.
With the lack of such a presumption, and given the nature of the factually complex disputes and particular claims of non-violation nullification or impairment, the resolution of issues relating to the proper allocation of the burden of proof is of particular importance. In case of non-violation nullification or impairment, i.e., where the application of Art. XXIII:1(b) is concerned, Art. 26.1(a) of the DSU and panel practice in the context of the WTO Agreement and GATT jurisprudence confirm that this is an exceptional course of action for which the complaining party bears the burden of providing a detailed justification to back up its allegations.
This requirement has been recognized and applied by a number of GATT panels. For example, the panel on Uruguayan Recourse to Art. XXIII noted that in cases “where there is no infringement of GATT provisions, it would be ... incumbent on the country invoking Article XXIII to demonstrate the grounds and reasons for its invocation. Detailed submissions on the part of that contracting party on these points were therefore essential for a judgement to be made under this Article”. And the panel on US - Agricultural Waiver noted, in applying the 1979 codification of this rule: “The party bringing a complaint under [Article XXIII:1(b)] would normally be expected to explain in detail that benefits accruing to it under a tariff concession have been nullified or impaired”.
Art. 26.1(a) of the DSU codifies the prior GATT practice, which provides in relevant part: “the complaining party shall present a detailed justification in support of any complaint relating to a measure which does not conflict with the relevant covered agreement ...”.
