Employers Are Not Discriminated Against By Employers.

A company wants to recruit an accountant, requires a bachelor's degree or above, and has over 3 years working experience.

Lee went to apply for a job, the company found that after the audit, Lee has been engaged in accounting work for 5 years, but she is a college degree, so on this grounds refused to hire.

Li believes that the company recruits employees to restrict their qualifications, which is a kind of employment discrimination.

And the company believes that employers have the right to use their own rights according to law, and the limitation of academic qualifications is the embodiment of the rights of independent employers.

Comment on:

It refers to any act that violates equal rights, such as discrimination, exclusion or preferential treatment, based on race, skin color, religion, nationality, sex, household registration, disability or physical health, age, height and language.

"

"The third rule states:" workers enjoy equal employment rights and independent employment rights according to law.

Workers are not discriminated against because of ethnic, racial, gender, religious beliefs and so on.

None of them mentioned

Therefore, it is not a job discrimination for employers to restrict the qualifications of applicants.

Related links:

Electrician zhengmou in the workshop duty during drinking and sleeping after drinking, resulting in the loss of equipment, the unit lifted the labor contract, but Zheng believes that he is not a custodian, no regulatory duties on goods, the unit is an illegal termination of the contract.

Can Zheng's proposal get legal support?

Zheng went to work in a Weihai company in July 1991 and was appointed electrician in the machine repair workshop. The two sides signed a fixed term labor contract.

In October 11, 2015, zhengmou was on duty and slept during the shift after drinking at noon. At this time, another worker of the workshop, Sun Mou, walked away from the machine repair shop without a motor repaired.

In December, the company learned the above information through investigation, and told the union that he had too much alcohol during his duty, failed to supervise the workshop items, and seriously dereliction of duty and extremely bad influence, and relieved Zheng's labor contract.

Zheng believed that he was an electrician and had no supervisory duties on the workshop items. The company's rescission of the labor contract violated the legal provisions and applied for labor arbitration, requiring the company to pay compensation.

After the ruling of the Arbitration Commission, he refused to accept the case and filed a lawsuit with the Huancui District Court of Weihai.

The court found that the sixty-second rules and regulations of the company stipulated that the unit could terminate the labor contract: violating labor discipline, working on the Internet, drinking, playing games, playing cards and playing mahjong at work time.

The machine repair workshop management system stipulates that the duties of the workshop include: maintenance, installation and demolition of equipment, facilities and so on.

The court held that although the duties of electricians and storekeepers were different according to their division of work, no matter which workers were on duty, they were responsible for the protection and supervision of the equipment in the workshop when they were on duty.

When Zheng was on duty, he violated the rules and regulations to drink and went to sleep after drinking, and was negligent in supervision, resulting in the loss of equipment in the workshop. The behavior of the company was a serious violation of labor discipline. The company relieved its labor contract in accordance with the law, and Zheng asked for no evidence of compensation.

Accordingly, the court decided to reject Zheng's claim.