本文關(guān)鍵詞： 商業(yè)秘密 人才流動(dòng) 競(jìng)業(yè)禁止 合理性標(biāo)準(zhǔn)　出處：《華東政法學(xué)院》2006年碩士論文　論文類(lèi)型：學(xué)位論文

【摘要】： 近年來(lái),競(jìng)業(yè)限制已是職場(chǎng)人士茶余飯后談?wù)摰臒狳c(diǎn)話題。員工的惡意“跳槽”行為成了企業(yè)商業(yè)秘密流失的主渠道,這已是不爭(zhēng)的事實(shí)。商業(yè)秘密人格化使得依據(jù)反不正當(dāng)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)法等來(lái)追究員工的民事侵權(quán)責(zé)任或違約責(zé)任存在舉證困難等弊病,很多企業(yè)只能望密興嘆。通過(guò)事前防范以從根本上減少員工侵害商業(yè)秘密的機(jī)會(huì)的離職后競(jìng)業(yè)禁止倒不失為一種比較有效的商業(yè)秘密保護(hù)方法,但因其“涉嫌”妨礙勞動(dòng)者的擇業(yè)權(quán)而備受爭(zhēng)議。 本文通過(guò)對(duì)我國(guó)現(xiàn)有立方立法的比較,發(fā)現(xiàn)各地立法雖對(duì)于離職后競(jìng)業(yè)禁止該多保護(hù)勞動(dòng)者一點(diǎn)還是多保護(hù)用人單位一點(diǎn),存在分歧,但基本還是肯定離職后競(jìng)業(yè)禁止這一制度的。值得注意的倒是勞動(dòng)合同法的立法過(guò)程中,出現(xiàn)了一種否定的聲音,而且這種聲音還占據(jù)了主導(dǎo)地位,對(duì)用人單位課以了極高標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的義務(wù),學(xué)者及實(shí)務(wù)界有識(shí)之士不禁驚呼,草案變相否定離職后競(jìng)業(yè)禁止的傾向與我國(guó)鼓勵(lì)科技創(chuàng)新,保護(hù)知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)的基本國(guó)策不符。 人趨利避害的本性,使得如果法律不對(duì)任意行為的人加以約束,必然導(dǎo)致社會(huì)群體的非理性行為,使社會(huì)陷入無(wú)序競(jìng)爭(zhēng)的沖突狀態(tài),本文從離職后競(jìng)業(yè)禁止產(chǎn)生的必然性角度闡述了離職后競(jìng)業(yè)禁止存在的合理性。當(dāng)然離職后競(jìng)業(yè)禁止并不是完美無(wú)缺的,權(quán)利的沖突是客觀存在的,于是從勞動(dòng)權(quán)與財(cái)產(chǎn)權(quán)碰撞的角度,探索了權(quán)利沖突解決的辦法,得出了共同抑制,實(shí)現(xiàn)雙贏的結(jié)論。此種理論上的論證也得到了各國(guó)歷史發(fā)展和現(xiàn)實(shí)實(shí)踐的證明,從世界各國(guó)來(lái)看,基本上對(duì)離職后競(jìng)業(yè)禁止還是持肯定或基本的容忍態(tài)度的,當(dāng)然它們很多可能也都是經(jīng)歷了否定之否定的過(guò)程的。接下來(lái)的問(wèn)題就是,如何共同抑制,本文認(rèn)為,通過(guò)補(bǔ)償法則的引入來(lái)平衡勞動(dòng)者作出的不競(jìng)業(yè)犧牲,符合社會(huì)利益最大化原則。本文最后從離職后競(jìng)業(yè)禁止源于勞動(dòng)合同又獨(dú)立于勞動(dòng)合同的角度,得出了對(duì)于離職后競(jìng)業(yè)禁止應(yīng)采用社會(huì)法的三重調(diào)整模式,并進(jìn)而提出了合理性標(biāo)準(zhǔn)設(shè)置的建議,明確了法律的底線性規(guī)定“應(yīng)為什么”,用人單位與勞動(dòng)者“可為什么”的界限�？傊�,對(duì)于競(jìng)業(yè)限制應(yīng)該做到盡量平衡雙方的利益,做到雙贏。
[Abstract]:In recent years, competition restrictions have become a hot topic for professionals to talk about after dinner. The malicious "job-hopping" behavior of employees has become the main channel for the loss of business secrets. This is an indisputable fact. The personalization of trade secrets makes it difficult for employees to be investigated for civil tort liability or breach of contract liability according to the anti-unfair competition law. Many enterprises can only hope to be happy. The prohibition of post-employment competition, which prevents employees from infringing on trade secrets in a fundamental way by taking precautions in advance, is a more effective way to protect trade secrets. But it is controversial because it is suspected of obstructing workers' right to choose a job. Through a comparison of the existing cubic legislation in China, this paper finds that there are differences between local legislations on whether to protect more workers or employers after termination of competition. However, it is basically certain that the system of non-competition after employment is prohibited. What is noteworthy is that in the legislative process of labor contract law, there has been a negative voice, and this kind of voice has also occupied a dominant position. With the extremely high standard obligation to the unit of choose and employ persons, scholars and people of insight in practice can not help exclaiming that the tendency of the draft to deny the prohibition of post-employment competition in disguise is inconsistent with the basic state policy of encouraging scientific and technological innovation and protecting intellectual property rights in our country. The nature of people seeking advantages and avoiding harm makes it inevitable that if the law does not restrict the arbitrary behavior, it will inevitably lead to the irrational behavior of social groups and lead the society into a state of conflict of disorderly competition. From the point of view of the inevitability of the prohibition of post-employment competition, this paper expounds the rationality of the existence of the ban on post-employment competition. Of course, the ban on post-employment competition is not perfect, and the conflict of rights exists objectively. Therefore, from the angle of the collision of labor right and property right, this paper explores the solution to the conflict of rights, and draws the conclusion that we can jointly restrain and realize the win-win situation. This kind of theoretical argument has also been proved by the historical development and practical practice of various countries. From the point of view of various countries in the world, there is basically a positive or basic tolerance attitude towards the prohibition of post-employment competition. Of course, many of them may have gone through the process of negation. The next question is, how to curb it together? In this paper, the author thinks that it is in line with the principle of maximization of social interests to balance the non-competition sacrifice made by the laborer through the introduction of compensation rule. Finally, from the angle of the labor contract and independence from the labor contract, the article concludes that the prohibition of post-employment competition is based on the labor contract. The triple adjustment mode of social law should be adopted for the prohibition of post-employment competition, and the suggestion of setting reasonable standard is put forward. It clarifies the bottom line of law "what should be", and the boundary between employer and laborer "why". In a word, the restriction of competition should balance the interests of both sides as far as possible and achieve win-win situation.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：華東政法學(xué)院
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2006
【分類(lèi)號(hào)】：D922.5;D922.291.91

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前6條

1 許雪衛(wèi);勞動(dòng)權(quán)之我見(jiàn)[J];太原城市職業(yè)技術(shù)學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2005年01期

2 何小勇,余蓉;競(jìng)業(yè)禁止與勞動(dòng)權(quán)利保護(hù)[J];江蘇警官學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2003年06期

3 馮彥君,王佳慧;我國(guó)勞動(dòng)法中應(yīng)設(shè)立競(jìng)業(yè)禁止條款——兼談彌補(bǔ)我國(guó)《勞動(dòng)法》第22條的立法缺失[J];吉林大學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)學(xué)報(bào);2002年06期

4 秦強(qiáng);論底線人權(quán)[J];山東公安專(zhuān)科學(xué)校學(xué)報(bào);2004年05期

5 黃俊輝;論違約金的性質(zhì)與功能[J];企業(yè)經(jīng)濟(jì);2005年08期

6 徐顯明,齊延平;中國(guó)人權(quán)制度建設(shè)的五大主題[J];文史哲;2002年04期

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前7條

1 張學(xué)謙;論商業(yè)秘密保護(hù)中的競(jìng)業(yè)禁止[D];對(duì)外經(jīng)濟(jì)貿(mào)易大學(xué);2001年

2 李秀元;我國(guó)商業(yè)秘密保護(hù)中關(guān)于競(jìng)業(yè)禁止法律問(wèn)題研究[D];華東政法學(xué)院;2004年

3 沈雯蕾;淺述商業(yè)秘密保護(hù)中的競(jìng)業(yè)禁止[D];蘇州大學(xué);2003年

4 李海瑛;商業(yè)秘密保護(hù)中的競(jìng)業(yè)禁止制度研究[D];浙江大學(xué);2002年

5 李超玲;人才流動(dòng)中的商業(yè)秘密保護(hù)——競(jìng)業(yè)禁止制度研究[D];中南大學(xué);2004年

6 陶海英;論勞資關(guān)系中商業(yè)秘密的法律保護(hù)[D];華東政法學(xué)院;2004年

7 李海濤;離職競(jìng)業(yè)禁止研究[D];中國(guó)政法大學(xué);2006年

，

本文編號(hào)：1499899