Brown, Ronald C. (Faculty Emeritus)
Permanent URI for this collectionhttps://hdl.handle.net/10125/34753
Browse
Recent Submissions
Item type: Item , Up and down the Multinational Corporations' Global Labor Supply Chains: Making Remedies That Work in China(UCLA Pacific Basin Law Journal, 2017) Brown, RonItem type: Item , U.S.-Russia-East Asia Comparisons of Dispatch (Temporary) Worker Regulations(Russian Law Journal, 2017) Brown, RonItem type: Item , Robots, New Technology, and Industry 4.0 in Changing Workplaces. Impacts on Labor and Employment Laws(American Univesity Business Law Review, 2018) Brown, RonItem type: Item , Eu-China Bit and FTA Enhance Labor Cooperation and Protection(University of Bologna Law Review, 2019) Brown, RonItem type: Item , Due Diligence Hard Law Remedies for MNC Labor Chain Workers(UCLA Journal of International Law and Foreign Affairs, 2018) Brown, RonItem type: Item , China-EU BIT and FTA: Building a Bridge on the Silk Road Not Detoured by Labor Standard Provisions(Pacific Rim Law & Policy Journal, 2019) Brown, RonItem type: Item , A New Leader in Asian Free Trade Agreements: Chinese Style Global Trade: New Rules, No Labor Protections(UCLA Pacific Basin Law Journal, 2017) Brown, RonItem type: Item , Commentary, Danish NCP Advances Due Diligence Obligations of OECD Guidelines in Rana Plaza Case(2017) Brown, Ronald C.The case concerns a complaint by Clean Cloth Campaign Danmark and Aktive Forbrugere (Active Consumers) to the Danish OECD National Contact Point (NCP) regarding the activities of PWT Group. The complaint alleged that PWT Group had violated the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises by failing to carry out due diligence in relation to its supplier, the textile manufacturer New Wave Style Ltd. of Bangladesh. New Wave Style was housed in the Rana Plana Complex in Bangladesh, which collapsed in 2013, killing more than a thousand textile workers. The NCP found that PWT had indeed violated the OECD Guidelines, first, by not using risk and decision-making systems, such as checklists, in connection with inspections and visits with its supplier at Rana Plaza and, second, by failing to demand that the supplier ensure its employees’ basic human and labor rights, including taking adequate steps to ensure occupational health and safety in their operations. The inspection of the supplier’s work site building structures revealed no violation of due diligence in that no incorporated or established practice was in place at the time of the accident. The NCP found that practice per se can be indicative but is not conclusive in regard to the scope of risk-based due diligence.Item type: Item , U.S.-Russia-East Asia Comparisons of Dispatch (Temporary) Worker Regulations(2017) Brown, Ronald C.Item type: Item , Government’s Obligation to Address Obstacles to Freedom of Association and Collective Bargaining Rights Reiterated in Korea Metal Workers’ Union and others v the Republic of Korea(2017-09-11) Brown, Ronald C.In a complaint to the ILO Committee on Freedom of Association against the government of the Republic of Korea, multiple unions alleged a no-union corporate policy in the context of disguised subcontracting and employment relations, antiunion practices involving harassment, intimidation, pressure to withdraw from trade unions and dismissal of union leaders, resistance to collective bargaining and noncompliance with agreements, and government failure to address allegations. In response, the government stated that on numerous occasions its labor agencies and courts had responded to filed charges and found no violations and that its own investigations had concluded similarly. The Korean Employer’s Federation, tasked with collective bargaining on behalf of the subcontractors, asserted that the subcontractors were employers, independent of a Samsung subsidiary, acted according to the law, responded to filed complaints before government institutions, and made corporate decisions based on business interests rather than antiunion practices. The Committee, however, determined that the allegations had not yet been fully addressed by either the government or the subcontractors, including the alleged kidnapping of a union member and termination of a union leader for his union activities. The Committee requested further investigation and reporting and invited the complainants to submit to the government further necessary information in several areas. The Committee also requested that the government develop appropriate mechanisms to protect subcontracted workers’ rights to freedom of association and collective bargaining and to keep the Committee informed of the outcome of independent investigations of the allegations.Item type: Item , Up and Down the MNC Global Labor Supply Chain: Making Remedies that Work in China(2017) Brown, Ronald C.This paper therefore focuses on domestic laws that provide workers with an additional avenue of remedy from an expanded employment relationship—a doctrine of joint employer liability that places obligations “up the chain” on the in-country originating contractor who benefits from the supply chain or operates it for the benefit of the offshore multinational corporation. Some form of this doctrine is already used to provide workers with wage remedies against Chinese construction companies and to provide dispatch workers wage and “employee” benefit remedies. Given China’s extensive role in multinational supply chains, this paper examines the doctrine of joint employer liability up the chain and evaluates whether it can be expanded in China to remedy labor law violations and protect workers in the labor supply chains.Item type: Item , Item type: Item , Chinese Style Global Trade: New Leader in Asia: New Rules; No Labor Protections in its Free Trade Agreements(2018) Brown, Ronald C.In 2017, after the election of Donald Trump and his subsequent language and actions surrounding global trade, Chinese President Xi Jinping took the world stage at the World Economic Forum’s Annual Meeting in a moment that led many to say he assumed the mantle of world leader on globalism and global trade, particularly in Asia. Previously, President Obama noted that the TPP presented an opportunity for the U.S., along with its partners, to write the rules of international trade with Asia-Pacific countries. At the same time, China has been working to negotiate another trade agreement in the Asia-Pacific Region, the Regional Comprehensive Eco-nomic Partnership (RCEP). The RCEP aims to be the largest free-trade bloc in the world, comprising all ten ASEAN nations (Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Singapore, Thai-land, Vietnam) and the six other countries with which ASEAN already has free-trade agreements (FTAs) — China, India, Japan, South Korea, Australia, and New Zealand. With China ascending in global leadership on Asian trade at the same time the U.S. descends, a looming question arises—what is to be expected in terms of trade rules and labor protections? There is a history on both issues that is explored in this paper and which reveals there may be difficulties ahead for those looking for an even playing field in trade and attention to labor protections. To many, it will seem like RCEP is a green light for MNCs to further invest in their labor supply chains in the developing countries in Asia, much to the consternation of labor unions in the U.S. and the detriment to American and Asian workers. Further, there are outstanding questions as to the efficacy of any labor protections that arise in future agreements. The Asia-Pacific Region is one of the largest markets in the world, so answering these questions is critical. To arrive at a fair estimate of what to expect in terms of real labor law protections and their enforcement in Asian countries under the Chinese-influenced FTAs, this paper examines the social dimension provisions of the Chinese free trade agreements (FTAs) in Asia relating to labor. The paper is structured as follows: Part I introduces the new reality and implications of China’s rising global leadership in free trade agreements in Asia; Part II deals with the landscape of current Chinese FTAs in Asia, including the very few with any labor provisions; Part III analyzes the Chinese and U.S. approaches, discusses expectations, and explores alter-natives for those interested in expanding labor protections in the Asian Region; Part IV concludes.Item type: Item , Robots, New Technology, and Industry 4.0 in Changing Workplaces(2018) Brown, Ronald C.The very issues created by corporate restructuring and changing workplace environments, with their infusion of new technology, also create emerging employment law issues in regulating the changes and in addressing the challenges in evaluating performance. The workplace environment significantly affects an employee’s work product, both in quality and efficiency. Industry 4.0 is a global trend taking place outside traditional employment structures because traditional employment has higher wage costs. Familiar legal issues may arise, though perhaps with unfamiliar applications. Not all jobs fall under the changing labor market conditions and for those cases, traditional evaluations that measure and evaluate productivity and performance may be aided by electronic technology. But for those many workers, now and in the future, working in a changing or alternative work environment (at home, in a different city, or overseas), or in an ambiguous or “joint employment” relationship, questions regarding the legal application of contractual wages and statutory benefits, safety and health requirements, workers compensation, and especially anti-discrimination laws arising from these performance evaluations may create novel situations in still-developing areas of law and legal solutions. This Article addresses the employment law implications of evaluating workers in the changing labor market, especially regarding the market’s workplace environments and uses of technology.Item type: Item , Due Diligence – MNCs and Human Labor Chains - Remedies: Soft Law and Hard Law(2018) Brown, Ronald C.This paper discusses the appropriateness of making due diligence a binding obligation for human rights and labor rights. It examines the evolution of traditional soft law into hard law, with recent domestic legislation imposing civil liability for failure, and discusses “due diligence” standards, processes, and remedies. It evaluates whether non-binding due diligence without the potential for legally enforceable “domestic hard law” remedies is adequate and concludes with a call for exploring obligations of legally binding due diligence with flexible remedies. This would make Multinational Corporations (MNCs) responsible for results that provide protection of the labor standards of the global labor supply workers. The author concludes and proposes that while all the current approaches, such as soft law, dialogue, transparency laws, reforms to improve labor protection laws and enforcement, should proceed expeditiously, the most effective remedy is for governments to legislatively mandate an expanded due diligence requirement and, as in recent French legislation, provide liability with enforceable remedies for failure to comply.Item type: Item , Commentary: Indonesian Government Again Needs to Better Implement ILO Conventions Nos. 87 and 98(2019-12-13) Brown, Ronald C.The Union claimed the management of PT Champ Resto Indonesia, the Company, a multi-location chain restaurant, discriminated against it and the workers by unilaterally transferring Union leaders to remote locations, denying a maternity leave to a worker, dismissing 89 workers after a peaceful protest against Company policies, and other anti-union intimidation. The Union made repeated claims with the Ministry of Manpower about these alleged activities and asked for statutory mediation After several months, the Ministry responded and authorized mediation in three provinces. The Company claimed it did not intimidate or discriminate against Union workers or leaders; that it negotiated a collective bargaining contract within months of request, and as employer it had the right to transfer workers for business reasons, which it did. It claimed it did not deny maternity leave to a worker and was not in violation of a health insurance registration law. The Company claimed it did not intimidate or discriminate against Union workers or leaders; that it negotiated a collective bargaining contract within months of request, and as employer it had the right to transfer workers for business reasons, which it did. It claimed it did not deny maternity leave to a worker and was not in violation of a health insurance registration law. The three mediations in the Labour Department found violations and recommended reinstatement and back pay. The Company refused to implement these, and the Union appealed to the Industrial Relations Courts in the three provinces. The Jakarta Court held no violation as the Company’s right to transfer takes precedence over ILO Convention No. 87. On appeal, the Supreme Court upheld the dismissals. The Bandung Court held the dismissals were not illegal because the dismissed protesters failed to follow the law to mediate rather than openly demonstrate. Some workers reached a settlement receiving severance pay. The appeals of this case and the Banten Court decision to the Supreme Court was still not decided. The Government indicates it is committed to ILO Conventions 87 and 98. The Government stated there was insufficient evidence of discrimination regarding the transfers, intimidation, or refusal to provide rights to the pregnant worker. There was no violation of the registration for the health insurance law. The rights of the dismissed workers are settled by agreement and differing court decisions are not unusual. Committee Recommendations include urging greater protection of workers’ associational rights, particularly in cases of worker transfers, and legislating against employer rules that interfere with these rights, urging the courts to conclude the pending cases, and to provide information on all.Item type: Item , China-EU BIT and FTA: Building a Bridge on the Silk Road Not Detoured by Labor Standard Provisions(Washington Law Review, 2019-12) Brown, Ronald C.It is time for European Union and Chinese leaders to build on the existing EU-China 2020 Strategic Agenda for Cooperation, quickly conclude on-going negotiations on their EU-China Bilateral Investment Treaty, and begin substantive negotiations on an EU-China Free Trade Agreement? China is now the European Union's second-biggest trading partner behind the United States, and the European Union is China's biggest trading partner. China is reaching to become the leader in globalism and is investing heavily to make it happen. One of the world’s largest projects, the Belt and Road Initiative is a primary driver of China's larger development strategy. A key aim of the BRI is to promote economic connectivity among countries in Eurasia by recreating the historic Silk Road along several land corridors and sea routes. While the parts of the project fit together like a giant jigsaw puzzle, one of the most important corridors is the road between the European Union and China where China is the European Union's biggest source of imports and its second-biggest export market. China is motivated to address historic obstacles and seize the opportunities for growth. At the same time, China can develop its own mega-regional free trade agreement as other such agreements grow around them, such as the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, while China’s Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership and European Union’s Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership languish. China’s first step might be an EU-China free trade agreement setting standards among the European Union’s 28 countries and China and paving the Silk road with a model for the 68 countries touched by the BRI encompassing about two-thirds of the world's population and 40% of global GDP. This paper will compare and discuss the possible accommodations necessary to reconcile the different approaches in free trade agreements by the European Union and China, with a focus on labor standards and dispute resolution provisions in their existing free trade agreements, in the context of current global obligations, including the International Labour Organisation, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, and others.Item type: Item , EU-China BIT and FTA Enhance Labor Cooperation and Protection(2019-12) Brown, Ronald C.An EU-China Free Trade Agreement (FTA) and Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT) can stimulate new labor protections and collective labor union cooperation in Chinese and EU workplaces, benefitting individual workers. Not only will it bring possible substantive improvements provided by the sustainability provisions calling for compliance with ILO labor standards, but most importantly, the interface of EU trade unions with Chinese workers, employers, and the local ACFTUs, brought about by its accompanying labor cooperation provisions and activities will enhance worker rights. It will also provide a measure of certainty with rules to guide the evolving BRI across the New Silk Road. Perhaps it is time for the European Union (EU) and Chinese leaders to build on the existing EU–China 2020 Strategic Agenda for Cooperation, quickly conclude on-going negotiations on their EU-China Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT), and begin substantive negotiations on an EU-China FTA? China is now the EU's second-biggest trading partner behind the United States and the EU is China's biggest trading partner. The resulting BIT and FTA could enhance trade and investment opportunities and contribute to employment opportunities and rising labor standards and bringing with it increased labor cooperation and worker protections. There are recent precedents indicating China is open to more substantive and cooperative labor provisions in their FTAs and BITs. This paper focuses on enhanced labor standards and collective labor cooperation under China and EU Members’ existing and proposed FTAs and BITs. Following the Introduction, Part II discusses the economic connections of trade and FDI between EU and China and the pathways to further the relationship; Part III provides a legal comparison of their different approaches on labor standards, dispute resolution, and labor cooperation in FTAs and BITs; Part IV provides analyses on the varying approaches of enhanced labor cooperation; Part V states the conclusion and suggests the EU-China corridor of the new Silk Road could and should be paved with standards consistent with international labor standards and emanating from a EU-China FTA and with its accompanying labor cooperation that exists within and behind the legal terms.Item type: Item , China Moving BRI into Latin American Countries: Chinese FTAs and Labor Implications(2019) Brown, RonaldItem type: Item , Promoting labour rights in the global economy: Could the United States’ new model trade and investment frameworks advance international labour standards in Bangladesh?(International Labour Review, 2016) Brown, Ronald C.International free-trade or investment agreements offer great potential for improving labour standards. But that potential is far from realized. Compared with earlier models, the strengthened labour provisions of the United States’ recent trade agreement with the Republic of Korea mark a definite improvement, but the author questions their effectiveness, not least because the rights they purport to protect are specifically framed (somewhat loosely) in terms of the ILO Declaration of 1998 rather than the fundamental Conventions that underpin it. Enforcement mechanisms are also questionable. He considers what would need to be done to ensure that such agreements genuinely contribute to raising labour standards globally.