【摘要】：“保證”前冠以“人事”二字,提示了人事保證相異于普通民商事保證。將民商事領(lǐng)域的保證制度引入勞動(dòng)人事領(lǐng)域,既因二者的出發(fā)點(diǎn)均是為了降低交易風(fēng)險(xiǎn)故在大框架上應(yīng)基本相同,又因二者所依從的主法律關(guān)系性質(zhì)不同而在具體規(guī)制上還應(yīng)有所區(qū)別。人事保證制度在我國(guó)歷史上出現(xiàn)過(guò),并存在了相當(dāng)長(zhǎng)一段時(shí)間,新中國(guó)成立后便長(zhǎng)期處于沉寂狀態(tài),近年來(lái)隨改革開(kāi)放及勞動(dòng)用工關(guān)系大量建立而再次得以廣泛運(yùn)用。自《勞動(dòng)合同法》頒布施行后,人事保證制度再度處于爭(zhēng)議端口,當(dāng)下仍或明或暗地為用人單位所運(yùn)用。與其他國(guó)家或地區(qū)有明確規(guī)定不同,我國(guó)勞動(dòng)立法未對(duì)人事保證作出明確法律規(guī)制,態(tài)度模糊；審判實(shí)務(wù)中對(duì)其效力認(rèn)定也不統(tǒng)一,同案不同判的現(xiàn)象時(shí)有發(fā)生。為廓清混亂狀態(tài),維護(hù)法律適用的統(tǒng)一性,為社會(huì)發(fā)展和經(jīng)濟(jì)建設(shè)更好發(fā)揮指引作用,有必要在前人的基礎(chǔ)上作進(jìn)一步的研究論證。 本文以民商事保證為對(duì)比,剖析了人事保證制度的內(nèi)涵構(gòu)成,對(duì)人事保證制度作了正負(fù)兩方面的功能分析,從信用危機(jī)下的必要性、動(dòng)機(jī)的正當(dāng)性、現(xiàn)階段不可替代的功能優(yōu)勢(shì)、法理基礎(chǔ)上的契合性、對(duì)人事保證的理論與制度困境的再反思等方面對(duì)我國(guó)確立人事保證制度作了合理性分析,并提出了以“契約自由與國(guó)家干預(yù)相結(jié)合,實(shí)現(xiàn)三方利益平衡”為重構(gòu)人事保證制度的指導(dǎo)思想,以期將人事保證制度的積極功能發(fā)揮至最大而將消極作用抑制至最小。以此指導(dǎo)思想為主線,運(yùn)用比較分析法,借鑒他國(guó)經(jīng)驗(yàn),結(jié)合本國(guó)實(shí)際,從保證人資格、保證期間、保證范圍、保證限額、保證方式、三個(gè)主體間的權(quán)利義務(wù)關(guān)系、對(duì)保證人利益的保護(hù)與救濟(jì)等各方面對(duì)人事保證制度的法律規(guī)制作了具體設(shè)想。本文認(rèn)為：保證人資格應(yīng)以有代償能力為應(yīng)然條件而不是實(shí)然條件,原則上用人單位不得拒絕勞動(dòng)者近親屬作為保證人；保證期間從用人單位知道或應(yīng)當(dāng)知道其權(quán)利受到勞動(dòng)者侵害時(shí)起算,最高不超過(guò)一年；保證范圍所涉職務(wù)范圍應(yīng)限于高風(fēng)險(xiǎn)職位、所涉行為范圍應(yīng)限于勞動(dòng)者違反忠實(shí)義務(wù)的行為；保證限額為勞動(dòng)者自入職以來(lái)至賠償事故發(fā)生時(shí)的年平均工資之一至三倍；保證方式應(yīng)限定為一般保證方式；用人單位應(yīng)盡謹(jǐn)慎管理義務(wù)及通知義務(wù),勞動(dòng)者應(yīng)盡善良注意義務(wù),以防范、降低保證人承擔(dān)保證責(zé)任的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)；同時(shí)應(yīng)賦予保證人范圍更為寬廣的先訴抗辯權(quán),不僅在勞動(dòng)者責(zé)任未被追究前可拒絕用人單位的索賠請(qǐng)求外,用人單位還有其他求償方式未用盡的,同樣可拒絕其索賠請(qǐng)求。對(duì)于前人未充分關(guān)注的勞動(dòng)者責(zé)任,本文認(rèn)為違反誠(chéng)信義務(wù)的勞動(dòng)者還應(yīng)向保證人承擔(dān)懲罰性賠償?shù)募又睾蠊?br/>[Abstract]:"guarantee" is preceded by "personnel", suggesting that personnel guarantee is different from ordinary civil and commercial guarantee. In order to reduce the transaction risk, the guarantee system in the civil and commercial fields should be basically the same in the large framework because the starting point of both is to reduce the transaction risk. Because of the different nature of the principal legal relationship between them, they should be different in specific regulation. The personnel guarantee system appeared in the history of our country and existed for a long time. After the founding of New China, it has been in a state of silence for a long time. In recent years, with the establishment of a large number of labor and employment relations, it has been widely used in recent years. Since the promulgation and implementation of the Labor contract Law, the personnel guarantee system is once again in the dispute port, and is still used by the employer explicitly or implicitly. Different from other countries or regions, the labor legislation of our country has not made clear legal regulation to personnel guarantee, the attitude is vague; the judicial practice is not uniform to its validity, the phenomenon of different judgment in the same case occurs from time to time. In order to clear up the confusion, maintain the unity of the application of the law, and play a guiding role in social development and economic construction, it is necessary to make further research and demonstration on the basis of the predecessors. Based on the comparison of civil and commercial guarantee, this paper analyzes the connotation of the personnel guarantee system, analyzes the positive and negative functions of the personnel guarantee system, and analyzes the necessity of the credit crisis and the legitimacy of the motive. At the present stage, the irreplaceable functional advantages, the conformity on the basis of legal theory, the reconsideration of the theory and system dilemma of personnel assurance, etc., have made a rational analysis on the establishment of personnel guarantee system in our country. It also puts forward the guiding ideology of reconstructing the personnel guarantee system by combining the freedom of contract with the state intervention and realizing the balance of interests among the three parties in order to exert the positive function of the personnel guarantee system to the maximum and restrain the negative function to the minimum. Taking this guiding ideology as the main line, using the comparative analysis method, drawing lessons from the experience of other countries, combining with the reality of our country, from the qualification of the guarantor, the guarantee period, the guarantee scope, the guarantee quota, the way of the guarantee, the relationship between the rights and obligations of the three subjects, This paper conceive the legal regulation of the personnel guarantee system in the aspects of the protection and relief of the guarantor's interests and so on. This paper holds that the surety's qualification should be based on the compensatory ability rather than the actual condition, and in principle, the employer should not refuse the close relatives of the laborer as the guarantor; The guarantee period shall not exceed one year from the time when the employing unit knows or should know that its rights have been infringed upon by the laborer; the scope of the job covered by the guarantee shall be limited to high-risk positions. The scope of the act shall be limited to the act of violating the duty of loyalty of the worker; the guarantee limit shall be one to three times the average annual wage of the worker from the beginning of his employment to the time of the accident of compensation; the mode of guarantee shall be limited to the general mode of guarantee; The unit of choose and employ persons shall exercise the duty of careful management and the obligation of notification, and the laborer shall do his duty of kindness and care in order to prevent and reduce the risk that the guarantor shall bear the responsibility of surety; at the same time, the guarantor shall be given the right to plead in the first suit in a wider scope, The employer may not only refuse the claim of the employer before the liability of the laborer is investigated, but also refuse the claim if the employer has not exhausted any other means of compensation. The author thinks that workers who violate the obligation of good faith should bear the aggravating consequences of punitive damages to the guarantor.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：西南財(cái)經(jīng)大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2010
【分類號(hào)】：D922.52

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前1條

1 方曉波;;雇員忠誠(chéng)險(xiǎn)推廣存在的問(wèn)題與對(duì)策[J];商業(yè)時(shí)代;2007年31期

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前2條

1 張進(jìn)銳;人事保證制度研究[D];西南政法大學(xué);2007年

2 陳冬紅;勞動(dòng)合同保證之否定性研究[D];西南政法大學(xué);2009年

，

本文編號(hào)：2226044