本文選題：違紀(jì)解雇　切入點(diǎn)：正當(dāng)性　出處：《安徽大學(xué)》2017年碩士論文

【摘要】：解除勞動(dòng)合同直接涉及到勞動(dòng)者的核心利益,違紀(jì)解雇使勞動(dòng)者失去工作且得不到任何補(bǔ)償。但由于勞動(dòng)者嚴(yán)重違反規(guī)章制度是合法的解除勞動(dòng)合同事由,因此違紀(jì)解雇侵犯勞動(dòng)者權(quán)益的問(wèn)題變得相對(duì)隱蔽,對(duì)于究竟在勞動(dòng)者的不當(dāng)勞動(dòng)行為達(dá)到何種程度能夠予以違紀(jì)解雇,理論研究和司法實(shí)務(wù)中均關(guān)注較少。研究違紀(jì)解雇正當(dāng)性問(wèn)題,思考違紀(jì)解雇正當(dāng)性的建構(gòu),完善不當(dāng)?shù)倪`紀(jì)解雇的救濟(jì)方式,對(duì)于勞動(dòng)者、用人單位以及整個(gè)社會(huì)都具有積極作用。我國(guó)立法對(duì)違紀(jì)解雇的規(guī)定較為原則,僅規(guī)定了在勞動(dòng)者嚴(yán)重違反用人單位規(guī)章制度等情形下,用人單位可以解除勞動(dòng)合同,具體的不當(dāng)行為及其嚴(yán)重程度的認(rèn)定均交由用人單位的規(guī)章制度自主規(guī)定。但目前用人單位規(guī)章制度制定過(guò)程中的民主程序形同虛設(shè),勞動(dòng)備案制度也名存實(shí)亡,對(duì)規(guī)章制度制定的制約作用微乎其微,用人單位依據(jù)不合理的規(guī)章制度對(duì)勞動(dòng)者做出的違紀(jì)解雇,便如同"毒樹(shù)之果",其正當(dāng)性難以保證。由于目前我國(guó)用人單位內(nèi)部民主法治程度不高,法律人才缺乏,用人單位法律意識(shí)淡薄,難以判斷何種不當(dāng)行為將達(dá)到嚴(yán)重違紀(jì)的程度,對(duì)違紀(jì)解雇的正當(dāng)性把握不當(dāng)。部分用人單位中重"人治"輕"法治"、重"效益"輕"權(quán)益"的意識(shí)盛行,有可能為了自身利益,制定嚴(yán)苛的規(guī)章制度,在勞動(dòng)者稍有小錯(cuò)的情形下即予以解除勞動(dòng)關(guān)系,導(dǎo)致勞動(dòng)者遭遇不當(dāng)?shù)倪`紀(jì)解雇。勞動(dòng)者遭遇不當(dāng)?shù)倪`紀(jì)解雇訴至司法機(jī)關(guān),我國(guó)司法機(jī)關(guān)對(duì)作為違紀(jì)解雇依據(jù)的規(guī)章制度的合理性一般不做審查,加之成文法國(guó)家的限制,使得在立法沒(méi)有明確條文的情況下,法官和仲裁員不能在判決中引用法理或者司法判例,通常選擇回避規(guī)章制度存在合理性的問(wèn)題,以其他事由完成對(duì)勞動(dòng)者的救濟(jì),但這種做法是非常規(guī)和非系統(tǒng)化的,不值得提倡。筆者從國(guó)家立法、用人單位、司法機(jī)關(guān)層面探究了不當(dāng)違紀(jì)解雇的根源后,提出了對(duì)違紀(jì)解雇正當(dāng)性建構(gòu)的思考。應(yīng)當(dāng)明確正當(dāng)性的內(nèi)涵,尊重勞動(dòng)者的個(gè)別勞動(dòng)權(quán)和集體勞動(dòng)權(quán),明確嚴(yán)重違紀(jì)的標(biāo)準(zhǔn);確立規(guī)章制度審查備案制,以推進(jìn)規(guī)章制度的合理化建設(shè);遵循最后手段原則,建立分級(jí)懲戒處分體系,根據(jù)勞動(dòng)者不當(dāng)行為的嚴(yán)重程度給予相應(yīng)的懲戒處分;加強(qiáng)違紀(jì)解雇的程序規(guī)制,規(guī)范違紀(jì)解雇的程序,明確除斥期間。在司法救濟(jì)方面,賦予司法機(jī)關(guān)對(duì)規(guī)章內(nèi)容合理性的實(shí)質(zhì)審查權(quán),明確復(fù)職補(bǔ)償,重構(gòu)經(jīng)濟(jì)賠償金方式,以此保障對(duì)勞動(dòng)者的司法救濟(jì)。
[Abstract]:Rescission of labor contract is directly related to the core interests of workers. Disobedient dismissal makes workers lose their jobs and can not get any compensation.However, as serious violation of rules and regulations by workers is a legitimate reason for the dissolution of labor contracts, the issue of violating discipline and dismissal and infringing workers' rights and interests becomes relatively hidden.Theoretical research and judicial practice have paid little attention to the extent to which the improper labor behavior of workers can be dismissed in violation of discipline.It has a positive effect on workers, employers and the whole society to study the legitimacy of disciplinary dismissal, to think about the construction of the legitimacy of disciplinary dismissal, and to perfect the relief method of improper disciplinary dismissal.The provisions of our country's legislation on disobeying discipline and dismissal are more principled. They only stipulate that the employer may terminate the labor contract if the laborer seriously violates the rules and regulations of the employer, etc.The specific misconduct and its severity are determined by the employer's rules and regulations.However, at present, the democratic procedures in the process of formulating the rules and regulations of the employing units are virtually empty, and the system of labour filing also exists in name only, and has little effect on restricting the formulation of the rules and regulations.According to unreasonable rules and regulations, employers dismiss workers in violation of discipline, just like "the fruit of poisonous trees", its legitimacy is difficult to guarantee.At present, the degree of democracy and rule of law in our country is not high, the legal talents are lacking, and the legal consciousness of the employing unit is weak, it is difficult to judge what kind of improper behavior will reach the degree of serious violation of discipline, and it is improper to grasp the legitimacy of the disciplinary dismissal.In some employing units, the awareness of attaching importance to "rule by man" rather than "rule of law" and "emphasizing efficiency" over "rights and interests" prevails. It is possible to formulate strict rules and regulations for the sake of one's own interests, and to remove the labor relationship in the event of a slight error on the part of the laborer.Resulting in improper dismissal of workers in violation of discipline.Workers encounter improper disciplinary dismissal to the judicial organs, our judicial organs generally do not review the reasonableness of the rules and regulations that are the basis for disciplinary dismissal, coupled with the restrictions of statutory countries, which make the legislation without clear provisions.Judges and arbitrators cannot invoke jurisprudence or judicial precedents in their judgments, and usually choose to avoid the question of reasonableness of the rules and regulations, and to complete the relief to the laborer with other reasons, but this practice is unconventional and unsystematic.It is not worth advocating.The author probes into the root of improper disciplinary dismissal from the aspects of national legislation, employing units and judicial organs, and puts forward some thoughts on the construction of the legitimacy of disciplinary dismissal.We should clearly define the connotation of legitimacy, respect the individual and collective labor rights of workers, clarify the standards for serious violations of discipline, establish a system for reviewing and filing rules and regulations in order to promote the rationalization of the rules and regulations, and follow the principle of last resort.To establish a system of graded disciplinary punishment, according to the severity of workers' misconduct, to give corresponding disciplinary sanctions, to strengthen the procedural regulation of disciplinary dismissal, to standardize the procedure of disciplinary dismissal, and to clear the period of punishment.In the aspect of judicial relief, the judicial organs should be given the substantive right to review the rationality of the rules and regulations, make clear the compensation for reinstatement, and reconstruct the way of economic compensation so as to guarantee the judicial relief to the laborer.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：安徽大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類(lèi)號(hào)】：D925.2

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 ;用人單位不得招聘五類(lèi)人員[J];四川黨史;2002年02期

2 ;單位可否扣發(fā)給企業(yè)造成經(jīng)濟(jì)損失的員工工資[J];中國(guó)就業(yè);2003年03期

3 ;使用童工每月最高罰款萬(wàn)元[J];工會(huì)博覽;2003年01期

4 阿碧;美女的困境[J];時(shí)代風(fēng)采;2003年23期

5 ;山西省總開(kāi)通救助電話(huà)[J];工會(huì)博覽;2004年02期

6 王福成;體檢費(fèi)應(yīng)該由誰(shuí)負(fù)責(zé)[J];工會(huì)博覽;2004年05期

7 田春潤(rùn);向春華;;用人單位有替失蹤職工支付撫養(yǎng)費(fèi)的義務(wù)嗎[J];中國(guó)社會(huì)保障;2005年07期

8 曾維康 ,鄧云濤;用人單位違約,大學(xué)生該怎么辦[J];中國(guó)大學(xué)生就業(yè);2005年11期

9 ;用人單位應(yīng)該按時(shí)足額支付工資[J];農(nóng)技服務(wù);2005年04期

10 楊正文;用人單位能否收取“風(fēng)險(xiǎn)金”[J];湖南農(nóng)業(yè);2005年09期

相關(guān)會(huì)議論文 前10條

1 楊淑嵐;;用人單位向勞動(dòng)者支付經(jīng)濟(jì)補(bǔ)償金的條件、標(biāo)準(zhǔn)及方法[A];處理勞動(dòng)爭(zhēng)議律師網(wǎng)絡(luò)研討會(huì)論文集[C];2002年

2 史朝偉;;關(guān)于高職院校學(xué)生頂崗實(shí)習(xí)若干法律問(wèn)題的思考[A];德育論叢（第一輯）[C];2011年

3 金曉蓮;;用人單位單方調(diào)崗變薪的效力[A];西部勞動(dòng)法律論壇暨全國(guó)律協(xié)勞動(dòng)和社會(huì)保障法專(zhuān)業(yè)委員會(huì)2010年年會(huì)論文匯編[C];2010年

4 劉俊彥;;用人單位看重什么——百家知名企業(yè)選人標(biāo)準(zhǔn)研究報(bào)告[A];青年就業(yè)問(wèn)題與對(duì)策研究報(bào)告——中國(guó)青少年研究會(huì)優(yōu)秀論文集（2004）[C];2004年

5 沈同仙;;勞動(dòng)者就業(yè)權(quán)和用人單位商業(yè)秘密權(quán)競(jìng)合法律保護(hù)機(jī)制初探[A];處理勞動(dòng)爭(zhēng)議律師網(wǎng)絡(luò)研討會(huì)論文集[C];2002年

6 龐春云;;無(wú)規(guī)章制度規(guī)定用人單位有無(wú)違紀(jì)解除權(quán)[A];西部勞動(dòng)法律論壇暨全國(guó)律協(xié)勞動(dòng)和社會(huì)保障法專(zhuān)業(yè)委員會(huì)2010年年會(huì)論文匯編[C];2010年

7 李溪瑩;宋艷萍;蔡天德;;領(lǐng)會(huì)《職業(yè)病防治法》內(nèi)涵 明確四者權(quán)益關(guān)系[A];新世紀(jì)預(yù)防醫(yī)學(xué)面臨的挑戰(zhàn)——中華預(yù)防醫(yī)學(xué)會(huì)首屆學(xué)術(shù)年會(huì)論文摘要集[C];2002年

8 許建宇;;關(guān)于勞動(dòng)法若干基本理論問(wèn)題的探討[A];探索與創(chuàng)新——浙江省勞動(dòng)保障理論研究論文精選（第二輯）[C];2002年

9 唐邦富;;試論《職業(yè)病防治法》的內(nèi)容特點(diǎn)[A];重慶市預(yù)防醫(yī)學(xué)會(huì)2004年學(xué)術(shù)交流會(huì)論文集[C];2004年

10 王杰;;關(guān)于克扣和無(wú)故拖欠工資的法律分析[A];處理勞動(dòng)爭(zhēng)議律師網(wǎng)絡(luò)研討會(huì)論文集[C];2002年

相關(guān)重要報(bào)紙文章 前10條

1 聶揚(yáng)飛;大學(xué)生就業(yè)須“自律”[N];安徽經(jīng)濟(jì)報(bào);2004年

2 ;我想辭職，用人單位是否有權(quán)依據(jù)合同進(jìn)行阻撓？[N];中國(guó)高新技術(shù)產(chǎn)業(yè)導(dǎo)報(bào);2000年

3 李冰 邱洪輝 記者 沈麗霞;團(tuán)市委 大力促進(jìn)青年創(chuàng)業(yè)就業(yè)[N];南昌日?qǐng)?bào);2009年

4 記者 甘貝貝;北京鼓勵(lì)用人單位招錄殘疾人[N];健康報(bào);2012年

5 本報(bào)記者 王佳;求職者與用人單位各有說(shuō)辭[N];山西經(jīng)濟(jì)日?qǐng)?bào);2014年

6 記者 劉春華;應(yīng)對(duì)招工難 用人單位降低“四大門(mén)檻”[N];四川日?qǐng)?bào);2014年

7 記者吳曉向;北京用人單位報(bào)告空崗有優(yōu)惠[N];工人日?qǐng)?bào);2003年

8 聞一言;有感于“用人單位不講誠(chéng)信不能參加招聘”[N];中國(guó)文化報(bào);2006年

9 謝子琳;用人單位支付工資有何規(guī)定[N];法治快報(bào);2006年

10 記者 羅妮邋通訊員 王天軍;用人單位招工30日內(nèi)須備案[N];法治快報(bào);2007年

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前2條

1 劉松珍;調(diào)職權(quán)研究[D];吉林大學(xué);2011年

2 王皎皎;解雇保護(hù)制度研究[D];吉林大學(xué);2010年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前10條

1 王浩然;論我國(guó)用人單位懲治權(quán)的法律規(guī)制[D];中國(guó)青年政治學(xué)院;2014年

2 朱頌;加班法律規(guī)制研究[D];蘇州大學(xué);2015年

3 陶云明;北京電子科技職業(yè)學(xué)院招生與就業(yè)系統(tǒng)的設(shè)計(jì)與實(shí)現(xiàn)[D];北京工業(yè)大學(xué);2015年

4 龐凱;某高校畢業(yè)生就業(yè)信息管理系統(tǒng)設(shè)計(jì)與實(shí)現(xiàn)[D];電子科技大學(xué);2014年

5 張怡然;我國(guó)用人單位罰款權(quán)探析[D];華東政法大學(xué);2015年

6 王曉彬;經(jīng)濟(jì)新常態(tài)下促進(jìn)大學(xué)生就業(yè)問(wèn)題研究[D];廣西師范大學(xué);2015年

7 王永麗;金前程人力資源顧問(wèn)有限公司勞務(wù)派遣中的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)及對(duì)策研究[D];中國(guó)海洋大學(xué);2015年

8 翟明哲;調(diào)職行為的法律規(guī)制[D];吉林大學(xué);2016年

9 魏香蓉;惡意欠薪的法律防治問(wèn)題研究[D];廣東財(cái)經(jīng)大學(xué);2016年

10 孫增光;推定解雇制度研究[D];遼寧大學(xué);2016年

，

本文編號(hào)：1728505