Whether The Job Is Harmful Or Not, The Employer Must Inform In Advance.

In 2015, Bai went to work in Qingdao and signed a labor contract with a local Korean tire manufacturer.

Only recently did he know that his work had great harm to human health.

Among them, rubber particles in tire factories produce pneumoconiosis rubber, and a substance called aniline, which is harmful to blood, liver, urinary and nervous systems, and even causes cancer.

So he found the person in charge and asked for a job adjustment.

The person in charge explained that the tire manufacturing work was just unpleasant and had little effect on the body and disagreed with his request.

If he disobeys the arrangement, he can only rescind the labor contract.

To this end, there is a dispute between the two sides.

Bai wants to know if his request is reasonable and whether the unit's practice exists.

。

"

"Article eighth provides:" 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 workers require to know.

Article thirty-fourth of the law on the prevention and control of occupational diseases stipulates that when a labor contract is concluded between an employer and a laborer (including an employment contract, the same below), the occupational hazards and consequences, occupational disease protection measures and treatment that may arise in the course of the work shall be truthfully informed to the laborers, and shall be stated in the labor contract, and shall not be concealed or deceived.

When a worker has changed his job or work content during the labor contract, he has engaged in the operation of the occupational hazards that he has not informed in the labor contract. The employer shall perform the obligation of truthfully telling the laborer in accordance with the provisions of the preceding paragraph, and shall negotiate to change the relevant provisions of the original labor contract.

The employer violates the provisions of the preceding two paragraphs.

It is the right to refuse to engage in occupational hazards, and the employer shall not terminate the labor contract concluded with the laborers.

Therefore, the enterprise should inform its occupational hazards before hiring Bai.

In this case, the enterprise not only failed to inform the relevant situation of Bai in advance, but when the company learned about the relevant circumstances and asked the enterprise, the company also deliberately concealed it.

Under this circumstance, Bai has reason to argue that the labor contract is invalid, and requests the tire enterprise to compensate for the loss. The tire enterprise has no right to unilaterally dismiss the white one.