Rules And Regulations Can Not Be Regarded As The Basis For Staff Management.

The unit has been relieved of its labor contract for 34 days on the grounds of the employee's continuous absenteeism. However, due to the fact that the unit has not submitted evidence to confirm the rules and regulations and have trained Li, it has been found that it does not meet the requirements.

Regulations.

In July 18, 2002, Li applied for a repair job in a trading company in Ji'nan. The last labor contract signed between the two sides was from April 1, 2013 to March 31, 2016.

In August 13, 2014, the trading company lifted the labor contract on the grounds of Lee's continuous absenteeism for 34 days, according to the unit rules and regulations.

Lee's average salary in the 12 months before leaving was 3774.13 yuan.

At the end of November, Li applied to the labor and personnel dispute arbitration committee of Licheng District, Ji'nan, to request payment by the trading company.

Economic compensation.

After the Arbitration Commission tried, the ruling supported Li's appeal request.

The trading company refused to be prosecuted to the Licheng District Court.

In the court trial, the trading company submitted the attendance table in July 2014 and August, which confirmed the fact that Lee had absenteeism for 34 days.

Li said he had never seen and studied the rules and regulations, nor did the trade company submit evidence to publicize the rules and regulations.

。

The court held that trading companies, as employers, should adopt democratic procedures in formulating rules and regulations, and the contents should be legality, and they should also be publicized to the workers.

The trading company has not submitted evidence to prove that the rules and regulations are formulated through democratic procedures and has been informed or publicized to the workers. Therefore, the rules and regulations submitted by trading companies can not be used as a basis for managing workers.

Lee did not go to work from July 9, 2014 to August 13th. The trading company did not submit evidence to confirm that during this period Li was informed of the consequences of Lee's absence from work. Therefore, the trading company's handling procedures for relieving the labor contract on the grounds of Lee's absence for no reason were not in conformity with the law.

A trading company unilaterally proposes to terminate the labor contract and shall pay Li's economic compensation.

Accordingly, the court decided: the trade company paid Li Mou to terminate the labor contract economic compensation 47176.6 yuan.

Related links:

In January 2015, the staff member of Chu applied for labor arbitration. He said he entered a garment factory in July 2014 to engage in garment processing. The two parties did not sign a written labor contract, and the garment factory paid 3500 yuan a month to him, but did not pay overtime wages of 1500 yuan. Chu asked a garment factory to pay the salary difference between August 2014 and December for 25000 yuan and overtime pay 9000 yuan.

Chu provided his own name work clothes, work cards, his own overtime diary, bank paction flow sheet and so on as evidence.

After receiving the notice, the garment factory did not appear in court, nor did it provide any defence and evidence.

In the trial, in the absence of the respondent, how to identify the applicant's statement and the evidence provided becomes the focus of this case.

The forty-seventh provision of the Supreme People's Court on the evidence of civil litigation stipulates: "evidence should be presented in court and cross examined by the parties.

Evidence without cross examination can not be used as a basis for determining the facts of a case. "

However, there is no provision for the operability of evidence identification under the system of default trial.

However, the sixty-fourth articles have made a principled provision for the identification of the evidence, namely, "the judge should follow the legal procedure, examine the evidence comprehensively and objectively, abide by the professional ethics of the judge according to the law, use logical reasoning and daily life experience, judge whether the evidence has no proof and the size of proof independently, and the reasons and results of the public judgment."

In summary, the author believes that in the absence of units, arbitrators should rationally judge the choice of evidence and the power of proof on the basis of upholding the principle of neutrality and form a conviction, that is, a substantive review of evidence, so as to determine the facts of a case and make a judgment.

In this case, the clothes and work cards provided by Chu have the name of the clothing factory. The seal of the garment factory has the seal on the work card, which proves that she has a labor relationship with the garment factory. Therefore, Chu's request for double pay should be supported.

According to the ninth provision of the Supreme People's Court on the interpretation of several issues concerning the application of the law in labor dispute cases (three), the workers who claim overtime pay should bear the burden of proof on the fact of overtime.

However, the workers have evidence to prove that the employer is in possession of the evidence of overtime facts, and the employer does not provide the employer with adverse consequences.

Chu Mou did not provide the clothing factory with the relevant evidence of the fact of overtime work. Therefore, he should bear the burden of proof on the fact of overtime work, but Chu himself had only his own statement and his own work diary, which did not prove the effect. Therefore, Chu's request for overtime payment should not be supported.

Finally, the arbitral tribunal ruled that the garment factory paid a 17500 yuan wage difference for Chu and dismissed her other arbitration requests.