Signing A Contract Is Not An Appointment.

In December 2014, the labor contract between Xiao Fang and the unit was terminated due to expiry, and then it was convenient to sign a two-year labor contract with another unit.

Xiaofang still has no pay in the original unit. The original unit let Xiao Fang go to collect it 5 days later.

Small convenience to the new unit, only a week after the formal work, units recognized.

Who knows, Xiaofang encountered a traffic accident on the way to the original unit to receive wages.

Identified by the traffic police department, the driver is negative.

。

Because neither the original unit nor the new unit handled work-related injury insurance for the small side, Xiao Fang had requested the two units to give compensation for work-related injuries respectively.

But the original unit is smaller than it already exists.

Because of the refusal, the new unit is also called Xiaofang.

I want to consult Xiao Fang.

Which family should bear the responsibility? Reader Wang Hua

Comrade Wang Hua:

The fourteenth article and sixth paragraph of the regulations on industrial injury insurance stipulate that workers should be identified as work-related injuries if they are injured by traffic accidents or urban rail pit, passenger ferry and train accidents on their way to and from work.

The sixty-second clause and the second paragraph stipulate that industrial injury insurance workers who have not participated in work-related injury insurance shall be paid for work-related injuries according to the provisions of these regulations.

It can be seen that the premise of the liability for work-related injury is to constitute such work-related injuries and employers. One is on the way to work and two on the way to work.

Xiaofang was only going to get wages, not on the way to and from work.

At the same time, Xiaofang does not belong to the employees of the original units or new units, because "workers" refer to the laborers who have labor relations with the employing units.

The labor contract between the small party and the original unit has expired, and according to the provisions of the tenth and third paragraph of the labor contract law, "the establishment of labor contracts between the employer and the laborer before the employment, and the establishment of the labor relations on the day of self employment", the labor relationship between the small party and the new unit has not yet been formally established.

Therefore, the traffic accident of Xiaofang, the original unit and the new unit are not liable for industrial injury compensation.

Related links:

When the accident happened on the way to dinner, the company claimed that he was no longer an employee.

Mr. Shi, a citizen, reflects his experience in sending urgent takeaway nets.

The company responded that Mr. Shi's meal was purely personal and had nothing to do with the company.

(according to the April 12th southeast Net News)

Dining is clearly the behavior of an enterprise, but the enterprise is said to be "purely personal behavior".

The reason for the person in charge of the enterprise is: the day before the incident, because of the wage settlement problems, he has clearly told Mr. Shi not to go to work again, but Mr. Shi insisted on working the next day.

Since then, it may be that the system has dispatched some problems, and some of the orders have been sent to Mr. Shi's mobile phone again.

"I have asked him not to go to work, and even if he receives the order message, he should not go, but he insists on delivering the meal, which is his personal problem and has nothing to do with the company."

But Mr. Shi did not think so. He said meals were allocated according to the company's orders, and how could it be a personal problem?

If we do not recognize their employees' status, can we not assume their due responsibilities? I think it is useless to do so, because the determination of labor relations is not only based on the labor contract, but as long as there is a factual labor relationship, enterprises should bear the obligations prescribed by law.

The principle of determining the work-related injury by law is that the worker has infringed upon the person because of improper operation or other reasons in his work or in the course of his work.

Mr. Shi is engaged in production activities according to the assignment of enterprises. He suffered personal injury during a meal delivery process and should be identified as an industrial injury.

In my opinion, the way of denying the company to shirk its responsibilities is like stealing the bell, because if there is a factual labor relationship, even if the contract is not signed, it is difficult for the enterprise to take responsibility.

Looking at this labor dispute, the enterprise refuses to assume responsibility. There are four mistakes:

The tenth provision of the labor contract law stipulates that a written labor contract shall be concluded in the establishment of labor relations.

It is a mistake for the company to recruit employees but not to sign contracts.

The thirty-ninth article of the labor contract law clearly stipulates that the dismissal of employees can only be dismissed under the six circumstances of "serious dereliction of duty, malpractice, and serious harm to employers".

Mr Shi obviously does not have any of the above faults, and his dismissal is obviously illegal.

This is the two mistake.

Besides, on the issue of employee dismissal, the fortieth article of the labor contract law has made the following stipulations: the employer can notify the laborer in writing thirty days ahead of time, or pay the employee one month's wages, and may terminate the labor contract.

Today, the company only hastily orally notifications second days do not come to work, which is obviously not in line with the dismissal procedure, which is the three mistake.

The state has made compensation measures for the dismissal of employees, so as to safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of employees.

The forty-seventh provision of the labor contract law stipulates that economic compensation shall be paid to laborers according to the number of years worked by the laborers in their units and the wages paid for one month per year.

For more than six months with less than one year, the financial compensation for half a month's wages will be paid to the laborers for a period of one year or less than six months.

This company's dismissal of employees is not giving any compensation. It is obviously a mistake. This is the four mistake.