论英国法下员工的保密责任

雇主和员工的关系是保密和诚信义务的体现。这就要求员工在为雇主工作的时候必须履行其保密和诚信义务。根据法律的规定和法院的判例,任何员工不能使用在雇佣过程中得到的信息损害其雇主的利益,即使是在他/她离职或者辞职以后,虽然对于雇主而言完全的禁止其员工在离职之后与其在相同领域竞争是一个很困难的问题,但是根据法律规定,雇主有权在一定的范围内保护他们的合法商业权益。本文将主要从以下几个方面探讨雇主的这种权利的保护。一、员工的默示保密义务员工的默示保密义务虽然没有明确的禁止员工在离职之后同原雇主的竞争,但是在1895年…     

论雇员不能胜任工作的解雇规则

我国《劳动合同法》第40条继续设定了雇主因雇员不能胜任工作而有权单方预告解除劳动合同的裁量性解雇规则,这是雇主对经培训或调岗仍不能胜任工作的雇员所能采取的终极措施,同时附随着预通知或支付代通知金的前置性义务。能否胜任工作是判断雇员有否适当履行劳动给付义务的基本准则,是雇主作出录用、试用期满经同意转正、继续雇用等决定的主要依据。域外劳动法中,雇主行使解雇权应当具备正当理由;就雇员不能胜任工作这一与其自身状况相关联的事由而言,雇主享有预告解雇权。如雇员的工作业绩达不到岗位任务目标或未能恪守忠实勤勉义务的,可以认定其不能胜任工作,经挽救仍不能适当履行劳动给付义务的,雇主就可以作出解雇决定,以均衡保护雇主和雇员的合法权益。     

The Question to Substitute Responsibility in the Workplace Sexual Harassment

雇主对职场中发生的性骚扰行为承担责任的性质,存在着替代责任说和自己责任说两种相对立的观点.解决职场性骚扰情况下雇主责任的承担有两种路径:侵权责任法和劳动法.通过侵权责任法解决职场性骚扰的责任,雇主承担对自己安全保障义务违反的不作为责任,属于过错责任,自己责任.在劳动社会保障法领域,雇主承担对劳动者保护的法定义务,应该提供给劳动者较好的工作环境,如果雇员违反法定义务致使雇员受到损害,雇主应该承担赔偿责任,是违反劳动法规定的法定义务承担的后果,其实质仍然是一种自己责任.     

职场性骚扰雇主替代责任说质疑

雇主对职场中发生的性骚扰行为承担责任的性质,存在着替代责任说和自己责任说两种相对立的观点。解决职场性骚扰情况下雇主责任的承担有两种路径：侵权责任法和劳动法。通过侵权责任法解决职场性骚扰的责任,雇主承担对自己安全保障义务违反的不作为责任,属于过错责任,自己责任。在劳动社会保障法领域,雇主承担对劳动者保护的法定义务,应该提供给劳动者较好的工作环境,如果雇员违反法定义务致使雇员受到损害,雇主应该承担赔偿责任,是违反劳动法规定的法定义务承担的后果,其实质仍然是一种自己责任。     

保护“吹哨人”的劳动法分析——基于德国司法经验的考察

雇员向国家机关、媒体等外部机构或个人告发雇主组织内部的违法行为,如何从劳动法角度评价这种吹哨行为？一方面,雇员吹哨是否受到言论自由的保护.另一方面,雇主的商誉和经济利益因此损害,雇员违反了忠诚义务吗？雇员的吹哨行为要满足什么条件才能得到保护呢？德国没有对“吹哨人”保护方面的专门立法,但是各级法院在过去几十年中审理了多起雇员因为“吹哨”被解雇的案件,经历了从认定雇员违反忠诚义务到有条件地支持雇员检举雇主的态度转变,欧洲人权法院对Heinisch/Deutschland一案的判决更是推动了德国对吹哨人的保护.受其启发,我国在还没有完善相关立法之前,在现行法框架下对雇员吹哨行为进行司法处理时,应该考察举报的事项、信息的真实性、雇员的行为动机、内部救济的优先尝试、雇主遭受的损害等多方面因素.     

论家庭对未成年人的保护--以父母照顾权为中心

我国婚姻法关于父母对未成年子女的义务与权利的规定非常概括,缺失了若干必需的法律制度。父母照顾权是父母对未成年子女进行保护、教育的义务与权利的总称,是基于父母的身份、依法律的直接规定而产生的,是以保护子女利益为目的的一种利他性权利,其内容包括人身照顾权和财产照顾权。父母不得抛弃照顾权,亦不得滥用照顾权。父母照顾权的行使应以子女最大利益为原则,由父母双方共同行使,并应考虑未成年子女的意见。在父母滥用权利、损害未成年子女的利益时,父母照顾权会依法被限制或剥夺。     

轻度伤残雇员的解雇保护机制

职业伤害防治法律制度构建的传统思路是保障工伤致残雇员获得及时的医疗救治和充分的经济补偿,而工伤保险基金则重在赔付工伤致残雇员工伤保险待遇或伤残待遇。雇员因工作遭受事故伤害或罹患职业病而致使其暂时不能或未能适当履行劳动给付义务的,工伤致残雇员的劳动给付障碍风险应当如何在雇主和雇员之间公平分配殊值研究。在劳动关系存续过程中,雇主对工作场所的职业安全和卫生保护负有谨慎注意义务,如果雇员因工致残是由雇主的过错导致的,雇主应当承担无正当理由不得解雇轻度伤残雇员或拒绝与之续签劳动合同的解雇限制义务,从而使轻度伤残雇员享有更充分的解雇保护权。     

劳动权的规范构造及其第三人效力——再论最高人民法院有关“工伤概不负责”的批复

宪法上的劳动权有着复杂的规范构造,它以职业自由为基础,以国家保护义务为核心,并以国家给付义务为外围。这种规范构造上的复杂性决定了对劳动权第三人效力的理解不宜一概而论。劳动权的核心是国家保护义务和给付义务,在这个方面它很难产生所谓的第三人效力,只有在职业自由方面才有产生第三人效力的可能。当事人在劳动契约中约定"工伤概不负责任",此种约定之所以无效,不是因为雇主违反了劳动保护的义务,而是因为雇主过度限制了雇工的生命健康权;不是基于劳动权的第三人效力,而是基于生命健康权的第三人效力。最高人民法院选择在劳动保护的角度来展开论证,恰恰未能准确把握案件所涉及的真正宪法问题,且造成社会权面向上的劳动权亦可适用于私法关系而生第三人效力的误解。     

父母照顾权研究

父母照顾权,是父母对于未成年子女养育、照顾、保护的义务和权利。世界许多国家的法律中均有关于父母照顾权(亲权)的规定。我国现行婚姻法中虽然粗略性地规定了父母对于未成年子女的抚养、教育、保护的义务,但过于原则、概括、可操作性差,缺乏体系性、逻辑性,欠缺父母照顾权制度中的许多必要的规定。我国将来制订民法典亲属编时,一方面,应明确规定未成年子女在家庭中的权利,另一方面,应就父母照顾权的具体内容、行使原则、父母照顾权的丧失与恢复、父母照顾权的终止等作出详细的规定。     

雇主责任的本质与雇主责任的归责原则

本文通过对雇主责任的本质进行分析,再结合国内相关归责理论,得出:雇主责任体现了纠正正义,是侵权法上的一个重要制度;雇主责任不同于雇主自己责任,属于他人责任;雇主责任不应考虑雇主在其中是否有注意义务的过失以及雇主责任的归责原则为雇主无过错原则。     

Mental disabilities under the ADA: a management rights approach

While numerous sources have focused on employee rights and employer obligations under the Americans with Disabilities Act, this article will emphasize employer rights with respect to mental disabilities under the ADA. Specifically, it addresses the ADA's definition of "mental disability," the right of employers to screen job applicants in spite of the ADA, the conditions under which an employer may require an employee to undergo a "fitness for duty" examination, and the limits of the duty to "reasonably accommodate" an employee with a mental disability.     

"Reasonable accommodation" under the Americans with Disabilities Act--what does it mean?

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) imposes on employers the duty to afford qualified disabled applicants and employees "reasonable accommodation," but provides minimal guidance as to the range of actions necessary to fulfill this duty. Under the statutory scheme, required accommodations will vary from employer to employer, from worksite to worksite for the same employer, and perhaps even from employee to employee at the same worksite. Personnel managers will be required to make very fact-specific decisions in each case as to whether to offer particular accommodations, with any decision declining to provide the accommodation subject to attack in litigation. Based on an analysis of how similar reasonable accommodation requirements have been interpreted under other statutes, this article analyzes the likely parameters of the duty to afford reasonable accommodation under the ADA and offers specific suggestions for employers to minimize their risk of liability.     

雇主责任的归责原则与劳动者解放

我国学界的多数观点认为雇主责任是无过错的替代责任,而我国"人身损害赔偿司法解释"第9条不以雇员的侵权责任为雇主责任的要件,并规定轻过失的雇员可以免责,与替代责任说的原理相矛盾,因而遭到学界的批判。于此相对,我国司法实务界多认为雇主责任是过错责任,学界与实务界在问题意识和基本立场上存在着明显差异。结合对德国、日本和英国的比较法研究,笔者发现,纯粹无过失的雇主责任是不存在的,替代责任并非世界法律发展的潮流。雇主责任的本质是组织过失责任,其根源在于雇主在企业组织上的瑕疵,因此雇主责任的成立无须以雇员的侵权责任为要件,倘以之为要件反而会招致诸多弊端。雇员的轻过失只是雇主组织瑕疵的衍生物,为雇主的经营行为所吸收,雇员可以从赔偿责任中解放出来。"人身损害赔偿司法解释"第9条体现的正是劳动者解放的法理。     

我国《劳动合同法》中的倾斜保护与利益平衡

法律在调整劳动者与用人单位之间劳动关系的过程中,一直强调倾斜保护劳动者。《中华人民共和国劳动合同法》在具体的制度设计中均体现了对劳动者的倾斜保护,如用人单位规章制度的制定、成立无固定期限劳动合同的情形以及劳动者的单方预告解除权等。但倾斜保护并非没有限度,倾斜保护的目的是改善劳动者的弱势地位,实现其与用人单位的实质平等,最终实现二者之间的利益平衡。失去了利益平衡的目标,倾斜保护就不符合正义的要求,不具有正当性。通过倾斜保护实现利益平衡是构建和谐劳动关系、促进经济发展的必然要求。     

The use of medical examinations for employment purposes

This article examines a number of legal issues which arise where medical examinations or tests are used in the employment context, either to test the suitability of a prospective employee in pre-employment situations or to ascertain the fitness of existing employees. Employer justifications for seeking medical information usually relate to attempts to comply with health and safety legislation and to reduce workers compensation costs. This article discusses the legal obligations involved in pre-employment medical testing and, in particular, employee obligations to provide correct information in relation to their health to a prospective employer. It also notes the consequences for employees of providing false information in relation to workers compensation claims and dismissal cases. The article notes the growing trend of requiring drug and alcohol testing for existing employees, particularly in the mining industry. The article concludes by noting that employers need to take care in seeking medical information, and that it should not simply be done as a mechanical, matter-of-course exercise. Failure to observe anti-discrimination laws may result in the employer facing allegations of misuse of medical information and claims for damages for discrimination.     

论雇主责任过错推定原则的合理性

雇佣是现代社会的一个普遍现象。受雇人因执行一定的职务不法侵害他人权益时，如何规制其雇主的损害赔偿责任是法律上的一个重要的课题。无论从构成要件的认定，还是从责任承担的安排上，均可推导出雇主责任过错推定原则的合理性。我国未来的侵权责任法宜明确规定雇主责任为过错推定原则。     

The Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation & Proportionality: A Public Law Principle Adopted into the Private Law of Employment

This article examines the possible adoption of the public law principles of ‘legitimate expectation’ and the standard of ‘proportionality’ as the appropriate and cohesive legal approach to voluntary promises that are normally found in ostensibly non-contractual documents. The article argues that, allowing a further development into the principle of legitimate expectation, which has already been adopted in employment relations as a further development of the implied duty of trust and confidence, could enhance the courts’ approach to the issue of voluntary promises and avoid the unsatisfactory contractual solution that appears to produce inconsistent results. Giving particular consideration to the courts’ application of the proportionality test, thereby recognises an employee’s hierarchy of interests, when seeking to justify an employer’s decision, this article assesses how the influence of the proportionality standard can, and should, offer a more satisfactory solution when applied to resolving disputes.     

Anatomy of an ADA case. Chatoff v. City of New York

This article addresses plaintiff and defense strategies in the context of an ADA case and is intended to serve as a ready reference to employer's counsel when faced with ADA litigation. In an ADA case, it is essential that counsel humanize the employer by keeping the "Our Business Supports Diversity" theme before the trier of facts at all times. This theme should be accompanied by the proposition that plaintiff's demands are not reasonable because they impose an undue burden on the employer or a risk to the safety of the employee or others in the workplace. It is also crucial for defense counsel to become familiar with the plaintiff's attorney's strategic considerations. ADA litigation strategy is illustrated by reference to Chatoff v. City of New York, a landmark ADA case instituted on behalf of the approximately 200,000 hearing-impaired residents of the City of New York, demanding equal and direct access to Emergency 911 services.     

Systematic construction of lawfulness of processing employees’ personal information under China's personal information protection law

With the rapid development and widespread use of digital technologies in the workplace in China, employers’ right to monitor and direct employees has often been abused, raising a number of disputes over the infringement of employees’ right to privacy in terms of their personal information. China must urgently develop an appropriate approach to balancing these two conflicting interests. However, there is currently no coherent and uniform regime governing the protection of employees’ personal information in China. The primary legal source on which employers can rely is the latest version of the Chinese Personal Information Protection Law (PIPL), which offers three lawful bases for employers’ processing of their employees’ personal information. These bases are employee consent; “necessity for the conclusion or performance of an employment contract”; and “necessity for conducting human resource management.” Concerns have been expressed regarding the reasonableness and effectiveness of the three lawful bases under the PIPL. First, it is both legally and practically problematic for the PIPL to rely so heavily on employee consent. Second, it is unclear whether the other two lawful bases relieve employers of the duty of notification and, if so, how to safeguard employees’ right to know. Third, the ambiguous standard of “necessity” requires clarification.This article argues that China should adopt many elements from EU law, while US law should be only followed in relation to the standard of “necessity”. In relation to employee consent, the EU approach is preferable to the US approach. As the EU approach does not generally regard employees’ consent as a lawful basis for the processing of their information and uses the other two lawful bases as alternatives to employee consent, this approach better reflects the customary practices of employee subordination and employer control in China. In contrast, US law deems employee consent to be an absolute general defense to the tort of privacy violation and adopts an employer favoritism approach to balancing these two conflicting interests, which is not appropriate in the Chinese context. In relation to the scope of necessity, three tests taken from the EU and US approaches should be considered by the Chinese courts. In addition, when processing personal information based on the other two lawful bases, employers should safeguard employees’ right to know through collective contracts concluded with labor unions or employee representatives under the Chinese Labor Contract Law, which would effectively address employers’ arbitrariness. Ultimately, these changes would produce a better balance between employees’ right to privacy in terms of their personal information and employers’ need to subordinate and control employees.     

AIDS: the first decade.

AIDS has had a profound effect on society and the workplace and has raised legal and social problems for which society was not prepared. This article will chronicle the evolution of federal, state and local law concerning AIDS and the workplace. Although there are some clear-cut answers and guidelines that address the relationship of employer and employee to the AIDS epidemic, current legislation and enforcement of those laws does not adequately address the AIDS victim as a handicapped individual. Emphasis is also placed on the problems peculiar to the health care industry, the constitutionality of present legislation, and the AIDS victim's right to privacy versus the employer's need to know. Finally, some practical solutions and guidelines will be presented that will help the employer deal with the AIDS victim and his or her co-worker.