Dismissal Of Employee'S Terms, Infringement Of Reputation, Apology

The employee conflicts with the employer and decides to expel the employee and send the deleted documents to the relevant units.

The use of extreme language to evaluate the employee's personal performance has caused disputes between the two sides.

The court made a first instance judgment, and found that the defendant's auto parts manufacturing Co., Ltd. had infringed the honorary right of the plaintiff, so he ordered the company to make a written apology to the plaintiff, he and Mou, and sent the apology to the related units that were originally copied.

The court found that the plaintiff, He Mou was originally a worker of a mechanical company, and retired at the end of 2001.

Since April 2006, the plaintiff has been working in the defendant's office.

In May 24, 2010, the defendant gave the plaintiff a serious warning on the grounds that the plaintiff had quarrelled with the company leaders and tore up the posting documents, and warned the plaintiff four times in June from July of that year.

In July 15, 2010, the defendant made the decision on how to deal with serious violation of discipline.

Plaintiff.

The decision uses "excesses", "passive work", "repeated mistakes, repeated mistakes" and other extreme words to describe the performance of the plaintiff.

After the decision was made, the defendant made a copy of the decision to a Limited by Share Ltd and related cooperative units, and attached 27 articles about the plaintiff.

Post performance.

It was also found that the defendant had business relationship with a car Limited by Share Ltd and a machinery company.

A machinery company received the decision of the defendant.

After hearing the case, the court finally found the defendant constituted.

And make the above decision.

The personnel management of the employing units must be made according to law, but must not infringe upon the reputation of the workers.

The relevant judicial interpretation stipulates that if a decision is made by a company or a public institution on the conclusion or disposition of its management personnel, the people's court shall not accept the lawsuit brought by the party to the people's court with the right of infringement of reputation.

Therefore, the internal personnel management behavior of the employer is protected by law, but it should not abuse its management right. The employee's personality rights should be taken into account in the process of employing personnel.

In this case, the defendant unit openly used words to make improper evaluation and dissemination of employees' personalities, and vilified the workers' personality, resulting in the damage of workers' reputation and beyond the scope of normal management behavior, and workers have the right to sue.

Related links:

A few days ago, the opinions of the CPC Central Committee and the State Council on building harmonious labor relations were officially released. After careful reading of the "opinion", we will find that there are specific opinions on how to implement paid vacation.

At the same time, the opinion also stipulates that the establishment of harmonious labor relations should be included in the assessment index of local governments.

Today, the welfare of workers is more secure.

This policy consultation desk will invite relevant lawyers and experts to read a series of explanations about the employees' sabbatical.

The regulations on paid annual leave for employees clearly stipulate: "the cumulative employment of employees has been less than 10 years for 1 years, and the annual leave is 5 days; the annual leave of 10 years has already been 10 years for less than 20 years; the annual leave of 15 years has been 20 years.

In practice, some employers conclude labor contracts with laborers intermittently, and then avoid the statutory annual leave conditions during the waiting period between several labor contracts.

One phenomenon is that workers are waiting for jobs every year, and there is no continuous work for 12 months. They also take leave as a holiday, and think that workers should not enjoy paid annual leave.

This policy advisory desk reminds us that we should distinguish between waiting for a job and vacation, with paid annual leave, while laborers enjoy normal wage income, while workers can only enjoy basic living expenses when they are on duty, so they can not be confused.

The claim that the deadline for waiting for a job to meet the deadline is not valid.

When this happens, workers should try to collect relevant evidence of continuous working hours, such as attendance records, work papers, payroll records and other materials, so as to win the initiative in the process of proof and complaints, and maintain their own paid vacation rights and interests.