Are Employees Violating Disciplinary Units Entitled To Fines?

Last October 11th, Yan was quarrels with his company's dispatcher during his work.

The company thought that Yan Mou violated the company's regulations seriously and fined 1000 yuan for Yan Mou and dismissal.

In November 23rd, Yan went to the local labor and personnel dispute arbitration committee for arbitration and required the company to return the 1000 yuan fined.

The Arbitration Commission heard that:

"

"No penalty is imposed on the employer. After the abolition of the regulations on reward and punishment of enterprise employees in 2008, the employer no longer has the power to impose a fine on the employee.

The existing administrative punishment law stipulates that administrative penalties can only be implemented by state administrative organs, and minor administrative penalties may authorize or entrust non administrative organs.

And these non administrative organs that can carry out the power of administrative punishment, the law makes strict regulations on its main body: first, it should be the organization that has the function of managing public affairs, and the two is that the organization must be equipped with the staff familiar with the relevant laws, regulations, regulations and business.

And China's

Generally do not have or impossible to have the above conditions.

Finally, the court of arbitration upheld Yan Mou's arbitration request.

Related links:

Sun Mou entered a technology company in Ji'nan in 10 months in 2010. The two sides signed a labor contract for 5 years.

In October 2015, when the labor contract expired, the company proposed to renew the labor contract with Sun Mou, but sun felt that the company's prospects were bleak and its wages were low, and refused to renew it.

After leaving the original company, sun soon found a company that he admired.

The new company issued an employment notice to Sun Mou and asked sun to carry on the entry formalities in December 25th.

Sun found the original company several times and asked the original company to issue proof of resignation, all of which were rejected.

Because sun couldn't provide proof of departure, the new company decided not to employ Sun Mou to avoid the risk of employment.

Disappointed, sun immediately submitted an arbitration application to the local labor and personnel dispute arbitration commission, demanding that a technology company compensate for the economic losses caused by refusing to issue a certificate of resignation by 50 thousand yuan.

The Arbitration Commission concluded that the certificate of resignation is "proof of termination or termination of the labor contract".

The fiftieth provision of the labor contract law stipulates: "the employer should issue a proof of termination or termination of the labor contract when it terminates or terminates the labor contract, and pfers the files and social insurance relations to the laborers within 15 days."

The eighty-ninth rule: "the employer fails to issue written proof of termination or termination of labor contract to the laborers in violation of this law, which shall be ordered by the labor administrative department to correct it, and the worker shall be liable for damages if he causes damage to the worker."

In this case, a technology company failed to issue a proof of resignation for Sun Mou in a timely manner, which made Sun Mou lose his job opportunity, resulting in economic losses and should be compensated.

Finally, the Arbitration Commission ruled that a technology company issued a proof of resignation for sun, and compensated Sun Mou for an economic loss of 30 thousand yuan.