Workplace System: Rules And Regulations Do Not Produce Legal Effect Without Publicity.

The formulation of rules and regulations needs to comply with legal requirements, including legitimate contents and procedural legality.

In November 1, 2013, Li signed a 3 - year labor contract with a chemical company.

In October 10, 2014, Li asked the company for leave for 5 days to deal with private affairs, but 5 days later, Li did not work for the company, nor did he take any renewal procedures.

In October 21st, the company made the decision to terminate the labor contract with Li in accordance with the rules and regulations of the company "more than 3 days of continuous absenteeism, and the company has the right to dissolve the labor contract".

Lee refused to mention it.

He thought he had never seen a flat.

I do not know the contents of the rules and regulations. The unit can not terminate the labor contract in accordance with the rules and regulations, and request the cancellation of the decision of the company to terminate its labor contract.

The Arbitration Commission considers that the content is legal, which means that the contents of the rules and regulations do not violate laws and regulations.

The procedure is lawful. It means that the employer should formulate rules and regulations in accordance with the procedures prescribed by law. The general procedure is: the draft of the human resources department shall be submitted to the workers' Congress or all the staff members to discuss the plan and opinions.

In this case, the company can not produce evidence to prove that the rules and regulations of the unit are formulated and publicized by statutory procedures, and should bear the consequences of losing the lawsuit.

Therefore, the Arbitration Commission decided to support Lee's appeal request.

Related links:

Job and work place are closely related to the living environment, quality and employment of workers.

Does the employer have the right to alter the work place and the work place of the employee without authorization? Does the employee have the right to refuse? Recently, the people's Court of Liancheng County, Fujian Province, supported the laborers' refusal right in the form of judgment.

In September 28, 2011, Huang worked for a wine company in Longyan and served as a salesman of Liancheng County branch. The two sides had not signed a written labor contract.

From September 28, 2011 to October 2012, the plaintiff did not deal with the defendant and pay all social insurance. The plaintiff handled the pension and unemployment insurance from November 2012.

In November 19, 2014, the plaintiff's liquor company issued a notice of pfer to the defendant Huang, without consulting with the defendant, and asked the defendant to report to a branch of the plaintiff company in Longyan before November 20, 2014, and served as a tally clerk in the branch. The defendant refused to pfer his job on the grounds that the branch was far away from home and was inconvenient to work. After that, the defendant did not go to the Liancheng County branch of the plaintiff, nor did he report to the Longyan branch according to the notice, nor did he go through the formalities of separation.

In November 25, 2014, the plaintiff released the unemployment insurance relationship between the unemployment insurance agency in Xinluo District of Longyan and the defendant.

In January 15, 2015, the defendant went to another liquor company in Liancheng County to work.

The labor dispute arbitration committee of Liancheng County made an arbitration on this matter and decided that the plaintiff Longyan liquor company paid 22610 yuan for the worker's compensation, and made up and paid the related insurance and fees.

The plaintiff disagrees with the arbitration, and considers that the defendant has not unilaterally gone through the relevant procedures and has been employed in other units, and has unilaterally broken the labor relationship.

The court held that although the two sides had not signed a written labor contract, a factual labor relationship was formed between the original defendant and the defendant.

The defendant's long-term working place and work place should be regarded as the agreement of the labor contract between the two parties. The plaintiff's work place and work post provided to the defendant according to the agreement are not agreed by both parties, and the plaintiff shall not alter it without authorization.

The plaintiff issued a notice of pfer to the defendant without consultation with the defendant. He changed the position and job of the defendant without authorization, and violated the relevant provisions of the labor contract law. Therefore, the plaintiff's claim has no factual and legal basis, and the court does not support it.