The scope of application for labor law is often dynamically defined by individual countries, reflecting their distinct socioeconomic realities and prevailing labor policies. For example, China employs a multifaceted categorization of ’employer,’ encompassing various designations such as Enterprise (profit-oriented commercial entities), Individual Economic Organization (individual traders with fewer than seven employees), State Organs (governmental bodies across all administrative tiers), Institutions (non-profit government-established organizations like hospitals and schools), and Public Organizations (government-organized and supported associations, such as the All-China Women’s Federation). The applicability of various labor and employment laws subsequently differs based on these employer designations. For instance, legislation pertaining to collective contracts is exclusively applicable to enterprises, public institutions, and state organs.
In contrast, Ethiopian labor law, when determining the applicability of its Proclamation, does not differentiate employers through such diverse designations to selectively apply or exclude parts of the Proclamation. Instead, it aggregates all profit-making and non-profit organizations, including administrative bodies, under a unified definition of ’employer.’ Subsequently, it explicitly excludes certain categories of employees, as enumerated in Article 3, from the Proclamation’s purview. For instance, Article 3(2)(e) specifically excludes government employees, rather than government offices themselves. Consequently, if employees hired by government offices are not governed by Federal Government Employees Proclamation No. 1064/2010 or another specialized law, then Proclamation No. 1156/2011 becomes applicable to them.
When adjudicating labor disputes, judicial bodies responsible for hearing such cases must first address a pivotal question: whether the plaintiff in the lawsuit qualifies as an ’employee’ according to the terms of the Proclamation. A negative answer necessitates the dismissal of the lawsuit on grounds of lacking jurisdiction to hear and decide a case initiated by a non-employee. Conversely, an affirmative answer prompts further inquiry to ascertain whether the employee is nevertheless excluded from the Proclamation’s scope of applicability under one of the categories detailed in Article 3(2). This provision outlines six distinct types of employment relationships that are specifically excluded from the Proclamation.
Even when an employee meets the stipulated definition and is not among the excluded categories, thereby generally falling under the Proclamation’s application, certain special circumstances can alter this general rule. For example, provisions concerning notice periods and severance pay do not apply to an employee who has not yet completed their probationary period. Similarly, the redundancy procedures outlined in Article 29 are inapplicable to construction workers. Furthermore, these procedures do not extend to organizations employing fewer than twenty individuals. While the right to strike and lock out is a constitutionally recognized right afforded to all employees and employers, this right is curtailed for employees engaged in extremely essential public service organizations, as specified under Article 136(2).
Within Part Four of the Proclamation, specifically Chapters One (Articles 61-64), governing working hours, and Two (Articles 69-71), regulating weekly rest periods, these provisions do not apply to commercial agents and commercial representatives. Regarding apprentice workers, the Proclamation’s applicability is partial. Apprenticeship contracts are explicitly governed by Articles 48 to 52 of the Proclamation, and other general working conditions apply equally, except for specific aspects of their employment relationship. For instance, provisions concerning the termination of employment contracts, severance pay, compensation, and reinstatement are not applicable to apprentice workers, and the procedures for contract termination also diverge from ordinary provisions. However, other working conditions not explicitly or implicitly excluded remain equally applicable to apprentice workers.