本文選題：員工舉報 + 忠實(shí)義務(wù)�。� 參考：《武漢大學(xué)》2017年碩士論文

【摘要】：近些年來,食品安全、產(chǎn)品質(zhì)量、環(huán)境污染等領(lǐng)域侵害公共利益的企業(yè)不法行為屢因內(nèi)部知情人士的舉報而見諸報端。員工舉報有效彌補(bǔ)了主管機(jī)關(guān)執(zhí)法信息的不足,維護(hù)和增進(jìn)了社會公共利益,然而,實(shí)施舉報的員工卻因?yàn)榕e報行為給所在企業(yè)造成了經(jīng)濟(jì)或聲譽(yù)上的損失,通常面臨著被雇主打擊報復(fù)的風(fēng)險。因此,如何通過法律制度的構(gòu)建與完善,為合法舉報的員工提供充分且必要的保護(hù),便成了一項(xiàng)重要且緊迫的議題。員工舉報在本文中特指,與用人單位建立勞動關(guān)系的勞動者,將其發(fā)現(xiàn)或知悉的雇主違法犯罪行為向有權(quán)受理機(jī)關(guān)進(jìn)行檢舉、報告的行為。民主法治社會中的舉報權(quán)利,在法律層面上與封建統(tǒng)治階級強(qiáng)苛于臣民的告密義務(wù)有著根本區(qū)別。員工的身份屬性決定了其舉報行為具有不同于一般公民舉報的三個特征:舉報前處于獲取雇主不法行為信息的優(yōu)勢地位、舉報時面臨忠于公眾與忠于組織的艱難倫理抉擇,舉報后遭受雇主工作上打擊報復(fù)的潛在風(fēng)險。員工舉報既是在行使一般法賦予其的舉報權(quán)利,也是在行使憲法層面的言論自由。但勞動關(guān)系的人身性和繼續(xù)性特質(zhì)及誠實(shí)信用原則的基本要求,決定了員工對其雇主負(fù)有忠實(shí)義務(wù),員工不得為有害雇主利益之行為。因此,員工舉報通常面臨著舉報權(quán)與忠實(shí)義務(wù)的沖突,及其背后隱含的公共利益和雇主私人利益的沖突。而欲在錯綜復(fù)雜的利益沖突中求得平衡,除了要重塑理性忠實(shí)的職場倫理觀念以外,更為可行的路徑則是對員工舉報權(quán)的行使進(jìn)行必要的規(guī)范。美國、英國、日本、韓國的舉報人保護(hù)法制皆設(shè)置了員工舉報的保護(hù)條件,以確保員工規(guī)范且正當(dāng)性地行使舉報權(quán)利,緩和與其忠實(shí)義務(wù)的沖突,降低對雇主利益的不必要損害。然而,我國現(xiàn)行有關(guān)法律并未對舉報權(quán)利如何行使作出規(guī)范。對比借鑒國外的立法例,本文提出了適合我國法律現(xiàn)狀和社會倫理觀念的舉報正當(dāng)要件:主觀上需為善意且合理相信雇主存在不法行為;內(nèi)容上應(yīng)限于違法犯罪行為,尤其是嚴(yán)重侵害公共利益的違法犯罪;程序上應(yīng)遵循先內(nèi)后外的一般順序,向媒體等外部受理人舉報時要符合嚴(yán)格的適用前提。法律應(yīng)為滿足以上舉報正當(dāng)要件的員工提供充分的保護(hù)與救濟(jì),使其免遭雇主的不利對待。我國尚無員工舉報保護(hù)的專門立法,分散于各法律中的舉報條款及勞動立法中的解雇限制和推定解雇的相關(guān)規(guī)定,盡管為舉報員工提供了諸如國外專門立法所確立的信息保密、人身保護(hù)、罪責(zé)減免和不利處分的禁止與救濟(jì)這四項(xiàng)保護(hù)措施中的一項(xiàng)或多項(xiàng)保護(hù),但仍存在以下不足:對員工舉報權(quán)與忠實(shí)義務(wù)沖突的關(guān)注不足,未能明確員工舉報受保護(hù)的前提條件;勞動法與其他相關(guān)法律中的舉報條款無法有效銜接,保護(hù)對象范圍狹窄;勞動法中解雇限制、推定解雇的列舉式規(guī)定,無法窮盡員工遭受的不利對待形式;仲裁或訴訟程序?qū)髲?fù)性不利對待爭議作為一般勞動爭議審查,未綜合考察雇主的報復(fù)事實(shí),易導(dǎo)致員工遭受實(shí)質(zhì)不公正對待;以及救濟(jì)措施中的賠償金數(shù)額確定不合理等�？紤]到在我國制定一部單獨(dú)的舉報人保護(hù)法的時機(jī)尚不成熟,本文選擇在現(xiàn)行勞動法的基礎(chǔ)上對上述不足進(jìn)行針對性的完善:對勞動法中現(xiàn)有的舉報條款進(jìn)行增補(bǔ)、修訂,明確員工舉報的正當(dāng)要件;將舉報事項(xiàng)擴(kuò)大至其他法律所規(guī)定的違法犯罪行為,實(shí)現(xiàn)各法律的有效銜接;采取列舉加概括的方式對員工舉報遭受的不利對待形式作出規(guī)定;仲裁或訴訟程序中,將雇主報復(fù)事實(shí)納入勞動爭議的特殊考量因素;賦予仲裁員或法官一定的自由裁量權(quán),允許其在法定賠償金之外,結(jié)合舉報員工的實(shí)際損害,在法定最高限額之下,確立合理的賠償數(shù)額。
[Abstract]:In recent years, the illegal behavior of enterprises in the fields of food safety, product quality, environmental pollution and other fields of public interests has been reported repeatedly for the inadequacy of the insider information. The employee reports effectively make up for the deficiencies of the law enforcement information of the competent authorities and maintain and enhance the public interests. However, the employees who have reported it have been reported to be responsible for the report. It is an important and urgent issue to establish and improve the legal system to provide adequate and necessary protection to employees who are legally reported. The labourer of the relationship has a fundamental difference between the report right in the democratic rule of law society and the informant obligation of the feudal ruling class at the legal level. The identity attribute of the employee determines that the reporting behavior of the employee is different from that of the feudal ruling class. The three features reported by the general citizen: the predominance of the information of obtaining the wrongful act of the employer before the report is reported, faced with the difficult ethical choice of the public and the organization, and the potential risk of retaliation on the employer's job after reporting. The employee report is not only the right to report it in the exercise of the general law, but also the exercise of the constitution. The legal level of freedom of speech. But the basic requirements of the personal and continuing nature of labor relations and the principle of honesty and credit, determine the employees' loyalty to their employers and the behavior of the employees not to be harmful to the interests of the employers. Therefore, the staff report is usually confronted with the conflict between the right of reporting and the duty of loyalty, and the public interest behind it. The conflict between the personal interests of the employer and the personal interests of the employer. In order to balance the intricate conflicts of interest, the more feasible way is to regulate the exercise of the employee's reporting right, except to remould the rational and faithful ethical concept of the workplace. The protection of the news from the United States, Britain, Japan and Korea has set up the protection of the employee's report. Conditions, in order to ensure the employees' rights to be reported in a standardized and proper manner, to mitigate the conflict with their faithful obligations and to reduce unnecessary damage to the interests of the employers. However, the current relevant laws of our country do not regulate the exercise of the right to report the report. The legitimate requisites of the idea: subjectively and reasonably believe in the existence of wrongful acts of the employer in good faith; the content should be limited to illegal and criminal acts, especially the illegal crimes that seriously infringe on the public interests; the procedure should follow the general order of the first inside and outside, and comply with the strict applicable premise when the media and other external admissible persons are reported. The law should be in accordance with the law. Employees are provided with adequate protection and relief to avoid the adverse treatment of employers. There is no special legislation for employee reporting protection in our country, the provisions of reports in various laws, and relevant regulations on dismissal and presumption of dismissal in labor legislation, although it provides a foreign special for reporting employees. One or more protection of the four protection measures, such as information secrecy, personal protection, guilt reduction and disadvantageous punishment, has been established in the door legislation, but there are still the following deficiencies: lack of attention to the conflict between the employee's reporting right and the duty of loyalty, and the failure to clear the premise of the protection of the employees; labor law and other relevant laws The reporting provisions in the law can not be effectively connected, the scope of the protection object is narrow; the enumerated provisions of dismissal in labor law and presumption of dismissal can not exhaustion the disadvantageous form of the employees' treatment; the arbitration or litigation procedure will take retaliatory disadvantageous treatment as a general labor dispute and do not comprehensively examine the fact of the employer's retaliation and easily lead to the staff. It is not reasonable for the workers to be treated in substance; and the amount of the compensation in the relief measures is not reasonable. Considering that the timing of a separate protection law in China is not yet ripe, this article chooses to improve the above deficiencies on the basis of the current labor law: to supplement the existing reporting provisions in the labor law, Revise, clarify the legitimate requisites of the staff report; expand the report matters to the illegal and criminal acts prescribed by other laws, realize the effective connection of the various laws; take the form of enumerating and generalizations to stipulate the adverse treatment forms of the employees' reports; in the arbitration or litigation procedure, the employer will retaliate the facts into the special labor dispute. Consideration of factors; give arbitrators or judges the discretion to allow them to establish a reasonable amount of compensation under the legal maximum limit, in addition to the legal damages, and to report the actual damage of the employees.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：武漢大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號】：D922.5

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 謝曉;忠實(shí)義務(wù)在法國的發(fā)展趨勢:契約化?[J];寧夏社會科學(xué);2005年03期

2 李友霞;聶嬰智;;夫妻忠實(shí)義務(wù)的法理解讀[J];東北農(nóng)業(yè)大學(xué)學(xué)報(社會科學(xué)版);2005年03期

3 郭俊;;淺議夫妻間的忠實(shí)義務(wù)[J];才智;2009年29期

4 方太文;;夫妻忠實(shí)義務(wù)探析[J];廣州廣播電視大學(xué)學(xué)報;2010年05期

5 王亞迪;;試論夫妻忠實(shí)義務(wù)[J];湖北廣播電視大學(xué)學(xué)報;2011年02期

6 郝志遠(yuǎn);劉英軍;;淺談夫妻忠實(shí)義務(wù)[J];赤峰學(xué)院學(xué)報(科學(xué)教育版);2011年07期

7 潘俊;;夫妻忠實(shí)義務(wù)的法律規(guī)制[J];新疆職業(yè)大學(xué)學(xué)報;2012年03期

8 呂鳳英;關(guān)于夫妻忠實(shí)義務(wù)的法理分析[J];遼寧師范大學(xué)學(xué)報;2002年06期

9 袁才榮;;夫妻忠實(shí)義務(wù)淺析[J];重慶文理學(xué)院學(xué)報(社會科學(xué)版);2007年01期

10 魏燕芳;;夫妻忠實(shí)義務(wù)的法理學(xué)分析——法律調(diào)整與道德調(diào)整的互補(bǔ)[J];忻州師范學(xué)院學(xué)報;2008年01期

相關(guān)會議論文 前2條

1 陳喬飛;;對夫妻相互忠實(shí)義務(wù)的法律思考[A];當(dāng)代法學(xué)論壇（2007年第4輯）[C];2007年

2 趙銘;;從忠實(shí)義務(wù)方面談婚姻問題——以筑路人為視角[A];當(dāng)代法學(xué)論壇（二０一一年第三輯）[C];2011年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前10條

1 王輝東;論夫妻忠實(shí)義務(wù)[D];華東政法大學(xué);2008年

2 劉電滿;簡論我國公司董事的忠實(shí)義務(wù)[D];中國社會科學(xué)院研究生院;2015年

3 周玲玲;關(guān)于董事忠實(shí)義務(wù)規(guī)則適用之實(shí)證研究[D];寧波大學(xué);2015年

4 劉孟真;我國公司董事違反忠實(shí)義務(wù)的刑法規(guī)制[D];中國石油大學(xué)(華東);2014年

5 劉通;論夫妻忠實(shí)協(xié)議[D];南京大學(xué);2014年

6 閆奕潔;夫妻忠誠協(xié)議法律問題研究[D];沈陽師范大學(xué);2016年

7 王超;論夫妻忠誠協(xié)議的法律效力[D];南京大學(xué);2016年

8 劉杰;夫妻忠誠協(xié)議效力的研究[D];山東政法學(xué)院;2016年

9 杜安杰;信托受托人忠實(shí)義務(wù)研究[D];安徽大學(xué);2017年

10 謝肖肖;員工舉報行為的法律調(diào)整[D];武漢大學(xué);2017年

，

本文編號：1994275