THE PRINCIPLE OF A RATIONAL LEGISLATOR AND THE SYSTEMIC REGULATION OF SOME LABOUR LAW INSTITUTIONS

Abstract

A systemic review of selected legal institutions of employees’ disciplinary liability leads to the conclusion that the regulation of disciplinary law is not based on rational and logical assumptions. Concerns are raised as to the existence of many statutes that regulate, separately for individual employee groups and, as a rule, differently, functionally identical substantive and procedural institutions of disciplinary liability. Such differences are not explained, by the different times at which individual statutes were enacted and the subject matter differences related to the exercise of particular professions. As for the legislator, a review of the relevant provisions of law indicates that the said regulations do not, in many situations, satisfy the principle of terminological consistency or the requirement of systemic coherence. This applies in particular to norms that, due to their faulty treatment of linguistic issues relating to the rational creation of law, do not meet the requirement of the said adequacy.