ПРАВНА ПРИРОДА ОДНОСА ИЗМЕЂУ РАДНИКА КОД КУЋЕ И ПОСЛОДАВЦА У РАДНОМ ПРАВУ СОЦИЈАЛИСТИЧКИХ ЗЕМАЉА
THE LEGAL NATURE OF RELATIONS BETWEEN EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEES WORKING AT HOME IN LABOUR LAW OF SOCIALIST COUNTRIES

Summary/Abstract: Question of the legal nature of relation between worker working at home and employer has great theoretical and practical importance. That is why this question has been discussed for a long time in the labour law theory. Depending upon the fact if this relation is accepted as labour law relation or placed among the civil law relations, worker at home is made equal with the other workers or labour law rights are denied to him. This question is solved in the framework of labour law relations by the labour law theory, legislation and judicial practice of the socialist countries. As a starting point and framework is taken the same labour law institute as in the labour law of capitalist countres. But is result the same? Results of the research show that in the labour law theory of socialist countries does not exist absolute uniformity in definitions of the labour law relation and its characteristics. As to the greatest part of theoreticiens, principal elements in the concept of the labour law relation among the others is incoproration of worker into collectivity of enterprise and its subordination to the rules of internal order of the collectivity. As to the other theoreticiens, those are the elements present in typical labour law relations which lack in the labour law relations of some atypical categories of workers. Because of that they cannot be taken as essential elements of the definition of labour law relations, which should embrace, without exception, all cases of the labour law relations. As atypical categories of workers are mentioned: outworkers, workers at home, housemaids etc.). From all this one might conclude that the opinions on the legal nature of the relation between the worker at home and employer in the labour law of socialist cofuotries are divided. Puite contrary, there exists nearly, if theory is concerned, complete similarity in conclusions. Disagreements appears only concerning definition of the content of the concepts incorporated" and subordinated". As to the first group of writers, these concepts are so defined to exist in the legal relations between the worker at home and employer; whereas, the second group states that these concepts do not exist in this sort of labour relations and some others and because of that cannont be taken as essential elements in the concept of labour relation. In that way these différencies in the opinions are out of the problem of legal nature of the relation between the worker at home and employer, which relation is absolutely accepted as labour law relation. As to the legislation on labour it, in accordance with the theoretical conceptions, provides for the worker at home the same legal position as the other workers have. This means that the legal status of the worker at home about vhich is much spoken and argumented in the capitalist countries is clear in the labour law of socialist countries. It is obvious that the basis of the mentioned conception can be found also in the fundamental principles on which the whole socio-economic and legal system of socialist countries is based. Only having this on mind we may understand why the legal position of the worker at home is understood differently in the labour law of socialist and capitalist countries though in both cases we start from, at the first moment, same elements of the labour law relation (incorporation and subordination).

• Details
• Contents