You are here

Resource Centre

China's labour dispute resolution system

With the high-speed growth and liberalization of the Chinese economy over the last decade has come an equally rapid rise in the number of disputes between employers and employees, especially large groups of employees. Typically, labour disputes have involved the non-payment of wages, overtime and social security benefits, lack of compensation for work-related illness or injury or termination of employment. In 1996, China's labour dispute arbitration committees (LDACs) handled 47,951 cases. By 2007, that number had increased seven-fold to 350,182. And in 2008, after the passage of the Labour Contract Law and the Labour Dispute Mediation and Arbitration Law, the number of labour dispute cases almost doubled again to reach 693,000. (see charts) The peaceful resolution of labour disputes has now become one of the Chinese government's top priorities, especially in the wake of the global economic crisis of 2008-09 which decimated the country's export industry and left tens of millions out of work.

The government first addressed the need for a system to resolve labour disputes in the era of economic reform in 1987, when it re-established the labour arbitration system, abolished in 1957. The system was initially limited to state-owned enterprises (SOEs) but later extended to other enterprises. But it was not until 1993, when the government promulgated its Regulations on Handling Labour Disputes in Enterprises (中华人民共和国企业劳动争议处理条例), that the four-stage dispute resolution system that (theoretically) still exists today was established. According to the Regulations, when a conflict arises, the two parties should negotiate between themselves first (consultation). Only when consultation fails should they seek mediation, and then arbitration. If these three stages fail to resolve the dispute, then either the employer or the worker can bring their cases to court. In 1994, the Labour Law established a labour dispute resolution system that includes: mediation, arbitration, civil lawsuit and appeal, colloquially known as "one mediation, one arbitration and two lawsuits" (一调,一裁,两审) – see schematic: The settlement of labour disputes in China. However, because mediation is not a mandatory process, the system is usually referred to as "one arbitration and two lawsuits" (一裁两审). In 2008, the Labour Dispute Mediation and Arbitration Law further refined the procedures, as well as the rights and duties of the mediation and arbitration committees.


Mediation is theoretically the second step of the labour dispute resolution process. Before the concerned parties request mediation, they should try to settle their disputes through consultation and negotiation between representatives of the management and the workers. However, because workers have limited bargaining power, and enterprise unions are largely ineffective (see CLB's research report Protecting Workers' Rights or Serving the Party: The way forward for China's trade unions), the consultation process only really exists on paper.

Mediation is a traditional grievance redress system encompassing almost every aspect of social life in China. People's mediation committees (人民调解委员会) are set up in villages, communities, workplaces and government organizations to help citizens settle their disputes.[1]  In 1987,[2]  the State Council ordered SOEs to set up their own mediation committees and, in 1993[3] and 1994[4] it urged non-state-owned enterprises to follow suit. Although mediation is not a mandatory process and the mediation agreement is not legally enforceable, mediation committees played an important role in SOE dispute resolution in the 1990s. However, with successive rounds of privatization and restructuring at the end of the 1990s and early 2000s, combined with the increased complexity of disputes, the importance of labour dispute mediation committees gradually faded. From 1999 to 2007, the number of disputes accepted by mediation committees increased 2.8 times from 113,381cases to 318,609 cases, compared with an increase of almost six times in the number of disputes accepted by arbitration committees. The proportion of successfully mediated cases also decreased from 72 percent in 1999 to just 19 percent in 2007. (see charts)

In the last few years however, the government has once again promoted and advocated the use of mediation in dispute resolution (see recent developments below). In 2007, the Labour Dispute Mediation and Arbitration Law vested new powers in the mediation committees. (See labour dispute mediation committees) It not only states that the concerned parties can take their cases to the mediation committees in their enterprises, but further that they can also approach the neighborhood or township mediation committees. It seems likely therefore that the proportion of mediated cases will increase in the future.

Labour Dispute Arbitration Committees

Arbitration is the first mandatory step of the labour dispute resolution system and, compared with mediation committees, the rules governing the arbitration procedures and qualifications of arbitrators are more specific and detailed. (See Chapter Three of the Labour Dispute Mediation and Arbitration Law.)

Article 20 states that arbitrators should be impartial and have a reasonable level of legal knowledge or experience, such as having served as an adjudicator, taught or practiced law for three years, or worked in human resources or as a union official for five years. However, it is not uncommon for unqualified arbitrators to be appointed,[5] and many commentators have expressed concern over the qualifications and impartiality of labour dispute arbitrators.[6],[7]

Whereas mediation can only be conducted on a voluntary basis, LDACs can issue rulings even in the absence of the respondent. LDACs conduct open hearings and their rulings are legally enforceable. The committees are supposed to encourage the two parties to seek mediation, and only when that fails issue a ruling. However, the proportion of LDAC cases concluded through mediation declined from 52 percent in 1996 to 35 percent in 2007. This trend was consistent with a decrease in the usage and success rate of mediation committees mentioned above.

If either party is not satisfied with the ruling they can take the case to a court of law within 15 days. However, to protect workers from prolonged legal procedures, under the Labour Dispute Mediation and Arbitration Law, in routine cases, the ruling of the LDAC is final, and only employees can appeal to the court. Article 47 of the law states:


In respect of the following labour disputes, the arbitral award shall be the final award and the statement of award shall have legal effect from the date of making, unless otherwise stated hereof:

1. disputes in relation to the claim of labour remunerations, work-related injury, medical expenses, economic compensation or damages which do not exceed the local monthly wage standard for an amount of 12 months;

2. disputes arising from working hours, rest days and leave days and social insurance in the implementation of state labour standards.

There are three possible outcomes in an arbitration hearing: a win for the worker, a win for the employer, or a partial win for the worker. Workers won in most cases. In 2007, workers won in almost half of the cases accepted, whereas employers won only 14 percent of the cases. (See charts) However, the winning percentage for workers has gradually decreased from 58 percent in 2000 to 46 percent in 2007.

The court system

China does not have a specialist industrial relations or employment court. Labour disputes are dealt with by civil courts and in accordance with civil procedures. The civil courts operate at three levels under the Supreme People's Court in Beijing. At the lowest level, district courts handle most labour disputes in the first instance. If either the plaintiff or defendant is unhappy with the verdict, they can appeal to the intermediate court, at the municipal level, or the higher court, which operates at the provincial level.

According to the Labour Dispute Mediation and Arbitration Law, all litigants should apply for arbitration before they can go to trial, but even if the LDAC rejects the application, the plaintiff can still file a lawsuit. Civil courts are seen by many as more professional and generally more independent than mediation and arbitration committees in the handling of labour disputes, especially in more routine, non-sensitive cases.[8] As such, more and more workers are determined to exhaust all possible steps in the labour dispute resolution process in their search for justice, especially since the cost of filing a labour lawsuit was reduced in 2007, with no fee being charged at all in wage arrears cases.[9] Furthermore, free legal assistance and advice is now widely available for needy workers and their families.[10]

The Chinese government does not publish yearly figures on the number of labour dispute lawsuits, and thus it is only possible to gauge trends from documents and reports issued sporadically by court and government officials. According to the People's Court News (人民法院报) in May 2008, labour dispute lawsuits increased gradually over the last decade from 84,700 cases in 2002 to 126,000 in 2006. And at the National People's Congress in 2009, the President of the Supreme People's Court, Wang Shengjun, announced that the number of labour disputes handled by China's courts nearly doubled in 2008, increasing by 94 percent over 2007 to reach 286,221.[11] The rate of increase for labour disputes handled by the courts in the last decade has been even higher than that of the arbitration and mediation committees. See table below.

Stage of dispute resolution Mediation committees (national) Arbitration committees (national) Arbitration (Guangdong) Trial of first instance (Guangdong) District and intermediate court (Dongguan) Intermediate court (Dongguan)
Rate of increase 1.4 times from 2000 and 2007 1.6 times from 2000 and 2007 1.7 times from 2001 and 2007 11.8 times from 1997 and 2006 5.66 times from 2000 and 2005 22 times from 2000 and 2006

Sources: National figures were calculated based on the China Labour Statistical Yearbook; for others see paragraph below.

In 2001, LDACs in Guangdong handled a total of 20,348 cases. By 2007, however, that figure had risen to 55,473, a rate of increase of 1.7 times over seven years. Between 1997 and 2006, however, the number of labour lawsuits handled by Guangdong's courts rose by nearly 12 times from 2,331 to 29,922.[12] The rate of increase in the number of cases referred to higher-level courts was even more obvious. In the manufacturing powerhouse of Dongguan, the number of labour dispute cases handled by district and intermediate courts in total increased by nearly six times,[13] but the rate of increase for the intermediate court alone was 22 times.[14]

These figures suggest that workers might be increasingly unsatisfied with the rulings of the LDACs, and are more willing to take their cases all the way to the final stage of the dispute resolution process. A study in Dongguan found that 41 percent of workers who filed for arbitration eventually took their case to court as well.[15]

Statistics released by the Supreme Court show that between 1995 and 2001, workers won 62.5 percent of the labour dispute cases accepted by courts in Shandong, 55.9 percent of the cases in Guangdong, and 55.3 percent of those in Heilongjiang.[16] In Guangzhou, between 2001 and 2005, workers won more than 40 percent of court cases.[17] However in some high density manufacturing areas such as Baoan district in Shenzhen, the proportion winning cases could be as high as 95 percent.[18]

Available statistics show that workers seem to have a better chance of winning cases handled by the civil courts than by the LDACs. In 2005, only 41 percent of workers won cases handled by Dongguan's arbitration committees compared with 63 percent of those heard by the city's courts.[19] (See tables below) And in the central province of Hunan, between 2005 and 2008, workers won about 80 percent of the labour disputes handled by the courts, almost double the national average of worker victories in cases handled by arbitration committees.[20]

Rulings of Dongguan LDACs
Year 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Workers won 70.0% 60.8% 37.5% 38.4% 32.7% 26.4% 40.7%
Partially won by workers       22.3% 34.1% 29.5% 17.9%
Workers lost 30.0% 39.1% 62.5% 38.4% 37.8% 44.1% 41.4%

Verdicts in labour dispute cases handled by courts at various levels in Dongguan
Year 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Workers won 77.8% 30.4% 52.5% 42.2% 52.6% 54.8% 62.9%
Partially won by workers 12.2% 32.1% 5.0% 41.7% 27.1% 28.8% 17.7%
Workers lost 10.0% 38.5% 42.5% 16.1% 20.3% 16.4% 19.4%

Source: Xu, Xin (徐昕)(2007). "Committing suicide to defend one's rights – ‘Protest by death' of Chinese rural migrant workers" (为权利而自杀—转型中国农民工的‘以死抗争'), Case Studies in China's Institutional Change (中國制度變遷的案例研究), (00):255-305.

Despite workers having a higher chance of victory in court, their winning percentage has decreased marginally over the last few years as employers have become more adept at manipulating the system to get off on technicalities, or endlessly drag out proceedings through appeals and other delaying tactics. Moreover, workers are increasingly filing cases without sufficient supporting documents or a clear understanding of the law. Some court officials have recently criticized workers for filing "irrational" lawsuits in response to their economic difficulties. For example, Wuxi in Jiangsu saw a 43 percent rise in the number of labour dispute litigation cases in the wake of the 2008 global economic crisis, but more than half the workers lost, many because of the allegedly "irrational" nature of their cases.[21]

Cases excluded from the dispute resolution system

Even though workers are more and more willing to use the administrative and judicial redress systems, their complaints are not necessarily accepted by the authorities. Workers are given all manner of excuses by the courts and arbitration committees for rejecting their cases. The examples below are merely the most commonly used.

In 2003, the Supreme Court stated that the civil courts should not accept collective labour disputes arising from the restructuring or privatization of SOEs.[22] These disputes mostly related to compensation for termination of employment, allegations of corruption and officials selling off state assets for personal gain. From 1998 to 2007, the number of SOEs decreased by two-thirds from 64,737 to 20,680. However, the only option for retrenched SOE workers was to address their grievances through the wholly ineffectual petitioning system or taking to the streets in protest. However, in some instances, SOE workers resorted to more extreme means, as in the case of Tonghua Iron and Steel in the northeast of China where a senior manager was beaten to death by workers dissatisfied with the firm's takeover by a private company.

Another major reason for having a case rejected is exceeding the time limit for an application for labour dispute arbitration. Shanghai's LDACs reported that in 2005 about ten percent of all applications for arbitration were rejected because they exceeded the time limit.[23] In 2008, the Labour Dispute Mediation and Arbitration Law extended the time limit from three months to one year. However, that is still one year less than for ordinary civil cases.[24]

A third reason cited by arbitration committees and the courts for not accepting a labour dispute case is that the worker plaintiff had not signed a labour contract with the employer. LDACs will often accept salary slips, duty rosters or other documents as evidence of a de facto employment relationship. But in many instances, these documents are in the possession of the employer, with workers denied access to them and so their applications are turned down by the arbitration committees. The situation is especially serious in the construction sector, where work is subcontracted out to many different employers.

Furthermore, although the law states that workers can take their cases to court even if the LDAC rejects them, sometimes they cannot pursue civil proceedings because the LDAC refuses to either accept or reject the case, thereby depriving the worker plaintiff of the documentation needed to file a lawsuit.

Delays in the labour dispute resolution process

A relatively straightforward case filed with an LDAC in a timely manner and with all the necessary paperwork can be resolved within two months. The LDAC has five days in which to accept or reject the case. The respondent then has ten days to reply, after which the LDAC's ruling should be made in 45 days. During this period, if the worker is still employed, they need to take at least three days off work, one to apply for arbitration, one to attend the proceedings, and one to obtain the ruling. This excludes the time needed to collect evidence and prepare their case. In practice, however, many cases are delayed for several months, even years. A study conducted in Dongguan in 2005 found that more than two-thirds of disputes were resolved by LDACs within six to 12 months, while another  quarter were concluded within one year to 18 months. Less than two percent were concluded in under six months.

In more complicated cases, such as those of work-related injury or occupational diseases, or where the employer adamantly refuses to pay up, the dispute resolution process can last for several years and go through more than 20 different stages. It is not uncommon for workers with occupational diseases to have died before or soon after their case was settled. The case of Deng Wenping, a migrant worker from Sichuan who contracted silicosis while working in a gemstone factory in Guangdong, tragically illustrates this.

Often, if employers lose the case, they simply appeal the verdict in order to delay payment. The cost of an appeal is only ten yuan, hardly a hindrance for an employer.[25] And even if workers win the appeal, there is still no guarantee that they will collect their award. Most workers only receive 40 to 50 percent of their award.[26]

The delays, obstacles and complications in the system sometimes force workers to use extra-legal, extreme or violent measures in seeking redress for their grievances. In a survey of 80 migrant workers randomly selected in Beijing, Zhejiang, and Anhui, only one bothered to use strictly legal means to claim back unpaid wages.[27] Many workers staged strikes, protests or sit-ins (see CLB's research report, Going it alone: a new report on the state of the workers' movement in China) or directly petitioned the local or even the central government. Moreover, it is now increasingly common for workers, especially construction workers, to threaten suicide as a means of claiming unpaid wages or work-related injury compensation. Others have used violence against their employer. On 15 June 2009, Liu Hanhuang, a 26-year old migrant worker from Guizhou, stabbed to death two senior managers at a Taiwanese company and seriously injured another manager in Dongguan during an argument over work-related injury compensation. Liu had lost his right hand in a work accident in September 2008, and had subsequently been embroiled in a dispute over compensation. The local LDAC awarded Liu nearly 180,000 yuan in compensation but the factory was only willing to pay half of the amount. A court upheld the ruling in May 2009 but the company still refused to pay, and in early June ordered Liu to leave his dormitory room in the factory complex. He protested by jumping from the top of a dormitory in a suicide attempt. Liu confronted his bosses with a knife and the dispute flared up into a fatal incident.[28] On 2 November Liu was sentenced to death (suspended for two years) and ordered to pay 1.2 million yuan to the victims.[29]

Recent developments: Promoting the use of mediation

The rapid increase in the number of labour disputes has created a heavy burden for China's arbitration committees and courts. The deputy head of the Shenzhen LDAC stated at the end of 2008 that some applications had to wait three months to be processed. In the past, arbitrators normally handled four cases a month, but with the recent upsurge in cases, he said, they were each handling on average 12 cases a month, and issuing rulings in a matter of days rather than weeks as before. To cope with the additional workload, he said, the number of arbitrators needed to double from 200 to 400.[30]  In the Dongguan township of Tangxia, which was badly hit by the global economic turndown, the local court has reportedly become the most overworked in the the country. The three judges at the Tangxia court needed to handle a total of close to 1,000 cases a year, compared with the national average caseload of 45 for each judge annually.[31]

Moreover, an increasing number of disputes never even go through arbitration or litigation. Cases involving large scale lay-offs, and closure of enterprises in particular, are less likely to go through legal channels. Rather workers stage strikes and protests in a bid to get the local government to intercede on their behalf. With the rapid increase in labour disputes and mass protests, the Chinese government is once again promoting mediation as a means of dispute settlement, both by increasing the number of mediation committees and encouraging the use of mediation in arbitration and court hearings. In 2006, the Zhenjiang municipal government in Jiangsu pledged to set up a labour dispute mediation committee in every enterprise with 100 employees or above, and to provide training to all mediators within one year.[32] In 2008, the implementation of the Labour Dispute Mediation and Arbitration Law made it clear that although mediation was still not a mandatory procedure it was considered a key part of the dispute resolution system. And in early 2009 the Ministry of Human Resources and Social Security urged local governments to settle at least 50 percent of simple cases through mediation and to set up more mediation committees at the grassroots.[33] In July 2009, the Supreme Court issued a ruling requiring courts to invite union and community representatives, village cadres and members of the public to help in the mediation process before issuing a verdict in the case.[34]

In order to promote mediation, some cities, such as Shanghai and Panyu in Guangzhou, have implemented a "mediation first, arbitration later" (先调解后仲裁) policy under which any cases registered with the arbitration committee have to go through mediation first.[35],[36],[37] As early as in 2007, Yantai in Shandong province required all labour dispute cases to be mediated by the trade union or the enterprise mediation committee before they were accepted by the arbitration committee.[38] Mediation committees have also now been established in public institutions such as universities[39] as well as at regional and industry-wide levels.[40]

As a result of these initiatives, mediation rates for labour disputes going to court are increasing. In Dongguan, mediation rates in the trial of the first instance rose from 13 percent in 2004 to 35.6 percent in the first five months of 2008. Mediation rates in the appeal stage increased from just two percent to 10.6 percent in the same time period.[41]  The national figures recorded a modest increase from 28.7 percent in 2005 to 29.8 percent in the first half of 2007.[42]

Mediation, if properly handled, can certainly benefit both workers and employers in that it can avoid lengthy and expensive litigation, especially in collective cases or those related to work-related injuries and occupational diseases. (See previous section.) However, successful mediation can only be achieved if workers have confidence in the process. To achieve this goal, the government needs to make sure that mediation committees are unbiased and are able to protect the rights of workers. This does happen from time to time, as in the case of Chen Yanqun who, after being beaten by her boss, was awarded 118,000 yuan in compensation plus additional benefits in a mediated settlement. However, as was clearly indicated by the earlier decrease in the usage and the success rate of mediation, it has thus far not been able to satisfy the needs of workers.

And despite the increased use of mediation in some areas, there is little evidence that workers actually have a renewed confidence in the system. On the contrary, it seems that increased mediation rates have been achieved at the expense of workers' rights. A judge in Henan, for example, acknowledged that in disputes over unpaid wages, many workers had to give up their legal entitlements to overtime, social security benefits or compensation for termination of contract or failure to sign a labour contract, just to make sure they got their basic wages.[43] And in Wuhan, a local labour department forced a group of migrant construction workers to accept a mere one quarter of their wage arrears because they did not have a valid labour contract.

Employers, on the other hand, often benefit from mediation because they end up having to pay less than they would in an arbitrated or litigated settlement handled strictly according to law. In November 2008, for example, after the boss of Hong Kong-owned Daily Power Batteries Limited absconded, leaving 130 workers in Dongguan without several months' wages, the factory's landlord sought to take over the ailing business. The local government, which had previously done nothing to help the workers get paid on time, cajoled the employees into accepting the landlord's offer to pay only half of their wages in arrears.[44]

In some cities implementing a "mediation first, arbitration later" policy, mediation rates have soared while the number of arbitrated cases has fallen sharply. In Taizou, Jiangsu, for example, mediation is now the main method used to handle labour disputes, so much so that in the first quarter of 2009, only about one quarter of the cases filed with LDACs were accepted, and 44 percent of those were concluded through mediation.[45] And in Panyu, Guangdong, the number of cases accepted by the LDAC decreased by 45 percent in the first half of 2009 compared with the same period in 2008.[46] It is highly unlikely that such high mediation rates could be achieved without some measure of coercion and the sacrifice of workers' basic rights.

  1. "Certain Provisions on People's Mediation Work" (人民调解工作若干规定), issued on 11 Sept 2002 by the Ministry of Justice, implemented on 1 Nov 2009.[Top]
  2. "Provisional regulations on handling labour disputes in state-owned enterprises" (国营企业处理劳动争议暂行条例) promulgated by the State Council on 31 July 1987, repealed on 1 Aug 1993.[Top]
  3. "Regulations on handling labour disputes" (中华人民共和国企业劳动争议处理条例), promulgated by the State Council on 6 July 1993; implemented on 1 Aug 1993.[Top]
  4. "Labour Law"(劳动法), promulgated by the NPC on 5 July 1994, implemented on 1 Jan 1995.[Top]
  5. "A circular on the use of unqualified labour dispute arbitrators to handle labour disputes" (关于使用无劳动仲裁员资格人员办理劳动争议案件的情况通报), issued by the Guangdong Labour Dispute Arbitration Committee Office (广东省劳动仲裁委员会办公室) on 25 Nov 2005.[Top]
  6. "The opening of the 2009 work meeting of the labour dispute arbitration committee of this district "(我区召开2009年度劳动争议仲裁委员会工作会议), Guangzhou Economic and Technological Development District, 30 March 2009.[Top]
  7. "How to select the right agency to carry out arbitration" (怎样选择仲裁机构进行仲裁), Zhong Gu Economic Arbitration Net (中顾经济仲裁网), 4 May 2009.[Top]
  8. Shen, Jie (2007). Labor Disputes and their Resolution in China. Oxford: Chandos Publishing, p. 127.[Top]
  9. "Regulations of the payment of legal fees" (诉讼费用交纳办法), promulgated on 19 Dec 2006 by the State Council, implemented on 1 Apr 2007.[Top]
  10. "The Shenzhen Labour Dispute Court has moved to a new address" (深圳市勞動爭議仲裁院遷新址) Shenzhen Special Economic Zone Daily (深圳特区报), 9 May 2009.[Top]
  11. "Wang, Shenjun: 286,221 labour dispute cases concluded, 93.93 percent more than the same period last year" (王胜俊:审结劳动争议案件286221件 同比上升93.93%), Xinhua Net, 10 Mar 2009.[Top]
  12. "Labour disputes have six characteristics, more cases involve senior management" (劳动争议案呈现六个特点 涉诉高层管理人增多), People's Court Daily, 5 May 2008.[Top]
  13. "Labour disputes increased 667 percent in five years; 70 percent involved unpaid wages" (劳动争议案5年增667%七成涉及单位欠薪). Southern Daily(南方日报),15 September 2006.[Top]
  14. "Dongguan: Unbalanced industrial relations; many people gave up dignity in order to keep a job" (东莞:劳资失衡 很多人"以尊严换饭碗"), Southern Metropolis Daily (南方都市报); 20 Sept. 2007.[Top]
  15. Ye, Liudong (叶柳东), Chen, Kui (陈葵), and Xu, Xin (徐昕), et al. (2009). "The causes and solutions of the rise of labour disputes) (劳动诉讼案件上升的原因与对策), 云南大學學報 (法學版) (Journal of Yunnan University (Law Edition), 22(1): 115-121 and 22 (2).[Top]
  16. Shen, Jie, Op cit p. 130.[Top]
  17. "Labour disputes have six characteristics, more cases involve senior management" (劳动争议案呈现六个特点 涉诉高层管理人增多), People's Court Daily, 5 May 2008.[Top]
  18. "Half a year after the implementation of the Labour Contract Law, more labour disputes are reported" (劳动合同法实施半年 劳动纠纷案件多), Nandu Daily(南都报),2 July 2008.[Top]
  19. Xu, Xin (徐昕)(2007). "Committing suicide to defend one's rights – ‘Protest by death' of Chinese rural migrant workers " (为权利而自杀—转型中国农民工的‘以死抗争'), Case Studies in China's Institutional Change (中國制度變遷的案例研究), (00):255-305.[Top]
  20. "Workers win almost 80 percent of labour disputes in Hunan over the last three years" (三年来湖南省劳动争议案件劳动者胜诉达八成), Hunan Daily (湖南日报), 7 Jan 2008.[Top]
  21. "Why has there been a large increase in the number of irrational lawsuits brought by workers?" (劳动者非理性维权案为何大幅上升), Legal Daily (法制日报), 23 July 2009.[Top]
  22. Huang Song, the deputy director of the Supreme People's Court stated at the National Discussion Meeting on Civil Judgments on March 26, 2003: "In handling mass labour disputes we must fully rely upon the support of the Party Committees and the government. Currently, our country's social security system is not fully developed. With regard to collective disputes arising from state-owned enterprises in arrears on wages due to factors like our state industrial policies or enterprise restructuring, (the court) may make a temporary dismissal. We must, under the unified leadership of the Party Committees, do a good job of guiding workers, together with the relevant government departments, to settle conflicts and resolve disputes." CLB report series, Speaking Out: The Workers' Movement Report 2005-2006, p.13.[Top]
  23. "It is time to revise the rules on accepting labour dispute cases for arbitration" 劳动争议仲裁前置该改改了), Oriental Morning Post (东方早报), 26 Jan 2006.[Top]
  24. Article 135 of the General Principles of Civil Law 民法通则, promulgated on 12 Apr 1986 by the National People's Congress, implemented on 1 Jan 1987.[Top]
  25. "Half a year after the implementation of the Labour Contract Law, more labour disputes are reported" (劳动合同法实施半年 劳动纠纷案件多), Nandu Daily(南都报),2 July 2008.[Top]
  26. "Reclaiming unpaid wages according to law: Migrant workers' sharpest weapon" (依法讨薪:农民工最锋利的武器), Southern Daily (南方日报), 4 Jan 2006.[Top]
  27. Ibid.[Top]
  28. "Trial of Taiwan businessmen's' killer set to open; Why did Liu Hanhuang use the knife?" (傳怒殺台商案將開庭 劉漢黃為何舉刀?) Epoch Times (大纪元), 23 Aug 2009。[Top]
  29. "Migrant worker appeals death sentence for murder of factory managers." CLB 3 November 2009.[Top]
  30. "Shenzhen labour disputes see a rapid three-fold increase; financial crisis worsened labour relations" (深圳勞動爭議激增3倍 金融風暴加劇勞動糾紛), Southern Daily (南方日報), 11 Nov 2008.[Top]
  31. "Labour disputes increase acutely; Dongguan law courts might become the busiest courts in the country" (劳动争议案骤增 东莞法院可能成全国最忙法庭), Southern News Net (南方新闻网), 3 Dec 2008.[Top]
  32. "Zhenjiang city rejuvenates its labour dispute mediators, all mediators in the city are required to possess necessary qualifications" (镇江为劳动争议调解员"充电" 全市劳解员将持证上岗), Jiangsu Trade Union Net (江苏工会网), 25 Oct 2006.[Top]
  33. "Mediation is a speedy way to resolve conflicts; experts warn however that the interests of workers should not be compromised in the process" (调解结案是快速解决争议的好办法 专家同时提醒 调解不能以损害劳动者权益为代价), Legal Daily (法制日报), 22 June 2009.[Top]
  34. "Guiding opinions on handling labour dispute cases in the current situation" (关于当前形势下做好劳动争议纠纷案件审判工作的指导意见), issued by the Supreme Court on 6 July 2009.[Top]
  35. "Mediation before arbitration achieves good results" (先调解再仲裁成效大), Panyu Daily (番禺日报), 2 July 2009.[Top]
  36. "Shanghai: district and community trade unions require routine labour disputes to be handled by mediation committees before they are brought to arbitration committees" (上海:社區工會發力 一般勞資糾紛從仲裁回到調解), Xinhua Net(新華網),28 Aug 2009.[Top]
  37. "Zhongshan: The labour and social security system has achieved an important breakthrough" (中山:劳动保障体系取得重大突破), Xinhua News (新华网), 21 Dec 2006.[Top]
  38. Sun, Xianghui (孙向晖), and Yan, Jiangfeng (闫江峰), "Yantai's new labour dispute mediation system" (市劳动争议案件调解协商新机制),Yantai Daily (烟台日报), 18 January 2007.[Top]
  39. "武汉理工大学劳动人事争议调解暂行办法" (Provisional regulations of Wuhan Technology University on mediating labour disputes), 26 December 2008.[Top]
  40. Wu,Xiaoxiang (吴晓向), "Beijing's multi-departmental labour dispute mediation system protects employees' legitimate rights and interests" (北京劳动争议调解联动机制运行维护职工合法权益),Worker's Daily (工人日报), 26 June 2009.[Top]
  41. Ye, Liudong (叶柳东), Chen, Kui (陈葵), and Xu, Xin (徐昕), et al. (2009). Op cit.[Top]
  42. "Labour disputes have six characteristics, more cases involve senior management" (劳动争议案呈现六个特点 涉诉高层管理人增多), People's Court Daily, 5 May 2008.[Top]
  43. "The race to mediate should not become a Great Leap Forward in the mediation rate" (调解竞赛莫成调解率"大跃进"), Legal Daily (法制日报), 23 June 2009.[Top]
  44. "A Hong Kong-owned factory Dongguan closes; workers forced to accept 60 percent of their wages" (東莞港資廠倒閉工人被迫接受6折支薪), Radio Free Asia, 28 Nov 2008[Top]
  45. "An analysis of labour disputes in the first quarter 2009" (2009年一季度劳动争议案件情况分析), Taizhou government Website, 28 Apr. 2009.[Top]
  46. "Mediation before arbitration achieves good results" (先调解再仲裁成效大), Panyu Daily (番禺日报), 2 July 2009.[Top]