The Claim For Dismissal In The Fraudulent Use Of Someone Else'S Status Is Dismissed.

A woman signed a labor contract with her company with her sister's identity card, which resulted in her social insurance being unable to handle normally, and was dismissed by the company on the grounds of fraud.

In this case, can she claim support for the company? Recently, the labour and personnel dispute arbitration committee of Jinshui District of Zhengzhou has decided to dismiss the claim that the employer has not paid for the loss of social insurance, based on the fact that the workers and employers have the right to know each other.

In 2007, Zhengzhou citizen Si Jinling applied for the joint property management company in Zhengzhou in the name of his elder sister "Si Fengling" (the two names were all assumed names) and signed a labor contract with his sister with his identity card.

As the two sisters grew closer, the unit did not find fault at that time.

In 2010, when the company was preparing to handle social security formalities for its employees, it was found that "Jin Ling" was not "Si Fengling" himself. He asked Si Jinling to hand in a photocopy of her identity card. She had not provided it and continued to work as usual.

In 2015, Si Jinling asked for sick leave for half a year. After the holiday, he still did not work for the company.

Recently, Si Jinling came to Zhengzhou Jinshui District Labor and personnel dispute arbitration committee, sued the employing unit Zhengzhou joint property management limited company, asked the company to pay the social insurance for the loss it did not pay.

After receiving the complaint, the employer provided the applicant's "application form for employee entry", "labor contract" and a copy of the identity card to the arbitration court. The names of the above parties were "Si Fengling".

The company claims that Si Jinling's fraud was first, and the long time sick leave and the full employment did not affect her normal work. It was legal and reasonable to terminate her labor relationship with her.

Si Jinling believes that the fact that she signed a labor contract with her sister's identity card is true in the company's work. That is to say, a labor relationship is formed, and the company needs to pay social insurance losses.

The arbitration tribunal found that Si Jinling himself did not fill in the "truthfully".

"No photocopy of my ID card has been submitted, resulting in employers unable to handle social insurance for them.

Therefore, the arbitration tribunal did not support Si Jinling's request for the employer to pay his social insurance losses.

The arbitration staff said that in the eighth clause of the labor contract law, it is stipulated clearly that when employing units to recruit laborers, they should truthfully inform workers of their work contents, working conditions, working places, occupational hazards, safety production status, labor remuneration and other circumstances that the workers require to know. The employer has the right to understand the basic situation of the workers directly related to the labor contract, and the laborers should explain them faithfully.

Labourers and employers should establish labor relations and sign written labor contracts. Labourers should understand the basic situation of the unit and relevant information about the job. Similarly, employers should also understand the basic situation of the workers.

So, can the employer know the relevant contents of employees?

The basic situation is directly related.

It includes real name, gender, age, address and contact information.

The two is education or certificate information. Some special jobs require some specific certificates to hold posts. The real personal certificates provided by the workers are directly related to whether the employing units can hire workers.

The three is the physical condition of the workers. When some women fill in the pregnancy, they will be pregnant for some time, but they will not be able to enjoy the care.

The four is the restriction of competition. Some workers signed a "competition restriction agreement" before entering the present unit, which had the obligation of confidentiality for the former unit.