论报复性解雇的课责
|
摘要
报复性解雇的课责,涵括课责基础、课责模式、课责模式选择的制约因素、赔偿金数额的量化等一系列理论梳理与规则设计。从报复性解雇的课责基础看,报复性解雇行为在性质上属于侵权行为,该行为不仅侵犯雇员的工作权和其他基本权利,而且侵害社会公共利益。对于报复性解雇行为,劳动争议处理机构可采取"重修补、轻惩罚"的课责模式或者"轻修补,重惩罚"的课责模式,前者以保护雇员基本权利为立足点,后者则以保护社会公共利益为支撑点。在选择报复性解雇课责模式时,应当以可否恢复原职为切入点,从雇主与雇员两个视角考量相关制约因素。选定报复性解雇的课责模式后,需计算赔偿金的具体数额,应分别建构补偿性赔偿金与惩罚性赔偿金的数据模型,以精确厘定二者的数额。
The accountability of retaliatory dismissal includes a series of theoretical combing and rule design, such as the basis of accountability, the mode of accountability, the constraints of the choice of accountability, the quantification of the amount of compensation, and so on. From the point of the basis of the accountability for the retaliatory dismissals, the retaliatory dismissal is in nature a tort behavior, which not only violates the employees' right to work and other basic rights, but also violates the social and public interests. As for the behavior of retaliatory dismissal, the labor dispute handling agency may adopt a"heavy repairing, light punishment"mode of accountability or a"light repairing, heavy punishment" mode of accountability, the former taking the protection of the basic rights of employees as the foothold, the latter taking the protection of the social public interests as the support point. When choosing the retaliatory dismissal mode, the starting point should be whether the former position can be resumed, and the relevant constraints should be considered from the two perspectives of employer and employee. After the model of accountability for retaliatory dismissal is chosen, the specific amount of compensation should be calculated. The data model of compensatory compensation and punitive damages should be calculated, and the data models of compensatory compensation and punitive damages should be constructed separately to determine the amount of the two accurately.
The accountability of retaliatory dismissal includes a series of theoretical combing and rule design, such as the basis of accountability, the mode of accountability, the constraints of the choice of accountability, the quantification of the amount of compensation, and so on. From the point of the basis of the accountability for the retaliatory dismissals, the retaliatory dismissal is in nature a tort behavior, which not only violates the employees' right to work and other basic rights, but also violates the social and public interests. As for the behavior of retaliatory dismissal, the labor dispute handling agency may adopt a"heavy repairing, light punishment"mode of accountability or a"light repairing, heavy punishment" mode of accountability, the former taking the protection of the basic rights of employees as the foothold, the latter taking the protection of the social public interests as the support point. When choosing the retaliatory dismissal mode, the starting point should be whether the former position can be resumed, and the relevant constraints should be considered from the two perspectives of employer and employee. After the model of accountability for retaliatory dismissal is chosen, the specific amount of compensation should be calculated. The data model of compensatory compensation and punitive damages should be calculated, and the data models of compensatory compensation and punitive damages should be constructed separately to determine the amount of the two accurately.
引文
[1]张文显.法理学[M].北京:高等教育出版社,2014:129-122.
[2]陈小君.合同法学[M].北京:高等教育出版社,2011:276.
[3]王利明.违约责任和侵权责任的区分标准[J].法学,2002,(5):45-50.
[4]Parween S. Mascari. What Constitutes a “Substantial Public Policy”in West Virginia for Purpose of Retaliatory Discharge:Making a Mountain Out of a Molehill[J]. West Virginia Law Review, 2003,(105):831-834.
[5]Stephen Taylor. Employment Law[M]. Oxford:Oxford University Press, 2015:106-109.
[6]郑爱青.法国劳动法概要[M].北京:光明日报出版社,2010:136-137.
[7]谢鸿飞.违约责任与侵权责任竞合理论的再构成[J].环球法律评论,2014,(6):7.
[8]Carol Abdelmesseh. Why Punitive Damages Should be Awarded for Retaliatory Discharge Under the Fair Labor Standards Act[J]. Hofstra Labor&Employment law Journal, 2004,(21):730.
[9]徐爱国.英美侵权行为法学[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2004:197-278.
[10]申卫星.民法学[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2013:519.
[11][德]克雷斯蒂安·冯·巴尔.欧洲比较侵权行为法(上卷)[M].焦美华,译.北京:法律出版社,2004:681.
[12]于敏.日本侵权行为法[M].北京:法律出版社,2015:123.
[13]甘强.论经济法的社会实施:源流、特征及其模式[J].江西财经大学学报,2018,(1):118.
[14][日]田山辉明.日本侵权行为法[M].顾祝轩,丁相顺,译.北京:北京大学出版社,2011:2.
[15][德]马丁·弗兰辰.劳动法中解约保护制度之建构[J].范婷婷,译.中德法学论坛, 2013,(10):236.
[16]王倩.保护“吹哨人”的劳动法分析———基于德国司法经验的考察[J].当代法学, 2016,(5):113.
[17]罗勇.不当解雇的法律责任研究[D].武汉:武汉大学,2016:68-98.
[18]沈同仙.论完善我国不当解雇的法律救济措施[J].中国法学, 2012,(6):101.
[19]胡立峰.美国劳动法上雇佣自由原则的公共政策例外:形成、实践与反思[J].西南政法大学学报,2009,(3):68.
[20]柯振兴.美国劳动法[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2014:127.
[21]焦兴铠.劳工法与劳工权利之保障(美国劳工法论文集)[M].台北:月旦出版社股份有限公司,2001:39-66.
[22]王利明.违法责任论[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2003:572.
[23]郑尚元.劳动合同法的制度与理念[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2008:453-457.
[24]Mathew Boyle. The Relational Principle of Trust and Confidence[J]. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 2007,(27):633.
[25]Alvin L. Goldman. Labor Law in the USA[M]. Amsterdam:Wolters Kluwer Press, 2014:121.
[26]水町勇一郎.労働法[M].东京:有斐閣,2012:395.
[27]菅野和夫.労働法[M].东京:弘文堂,2012:856.
[28]毛景.报复性解雇认定标准及法律责任之构造———基于美国立法与司法经验的考察[J].上海财经大学学报,2017,(6):125.
[29]何建志.惩罚性赔偿金之法理与应用———论最适赔偿金额之判定[J].台大法学论丛,2002,(3):278-292.
[30]陈聪富.美国法上之惩罚性赔偿金制度[J].台大法学论丛,2003,(5):195-196.
[31]林德瑞.论惩罚性赔偿金[J].中正大学法学集刊,1998,(2):60-74.
[32]戴志杰.美国法上雇用人惩罚性赔偿金责任之研究(上)[J].政大法学评论,2011,(4):206-219.
[33]谢增毅.劳动法上经济补偿的范围及性质[J].中国法学,2011,(4):112.
(1)参见《报复性解雇认定标准及法律责任之构造——基于美国立法与司法经验的考察》,载《上海财经大学学报》2017年第6期;《报复性解雇:一个劳动法概念的解构》,载《中国人力资源开发》 2018年第6期;《美国报复性解雇制度及其借鉴》,载《国际经济法学刊》 2019年第1期。————
(1)参见Employment Right Act(1996)123(6).
(1)参见《劳动合同法》第47条。
[2]陈小君.合同法学[M].北京:高等教育出版社,2011:276.
[3]王利明.违约责任和侵权责任的区分标准[J].法学,2002,(5):45-50.
[4]Parween S. Mascari. What Constitutes a “Substantial Public Policy”in West Virginia for Purpose of Retaliatory Discharge:Making a Mountain Out of a Molehill[J]. West Virginia Law Review, 2003,(105):831-834.
[5]Stephen Taylor. Employment Law[M]. Oxford:Oxford University Press, 2015:106-109.
[6]郑爱青.法国劳动法概要[M].北京:光明日报出版社,2010:136-137.
[7]谢鸿飞.违约责任与侵权责任竞合理论的再构成[J].环球法律评论,2014,(6):7.
[8]Carol Abdelmesseh. Why Punitive Damages Should be Awarded for Retaliatory Discharge Under the Fair Labor Standards Act[J]. Hofstra Labor&Employment law Journal, 2004,(21):730.
[9]徐爱国.英美侵权行为法学[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2004:197-278.
[10]申卫星.民法学[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2013:519.
[11][德]克雷斯蒂安·冯·巴尔.欧洲比较侵权行为法(上卷)[M].焦美华,译.北京:法律出版社,2004:681.
[12]于敏.日本侵权行为法[M].北京:法律出版社,2015:123.
[13]甘强.论经济法的社会实施:源流、特征及其模式[J].江西财经大学学报,2018,(1):118.
[14][日]田山辉明.日本侵权行为法[M].顾祝轩,丁相顺,译.北京:北京大学出版社,2011:2.
[15][德]马丁·弗兰辰.劳动法中解约保护制度之建构[J].范婷婷,译.中德法学论坛, 2013,(10):236.
[16]王倩.保护“吹哨人”的劳动法分析———基于德国司法经验的考察[J].当代法学, 2016,(5):113.
[17]罗勇.不当解雇的法律责任研究[D].武汉:武汉大学,2016:68-98.
[18]沈同仙.论完善我国不当解雇的法律救济措施[J].中国法学, 2012,(6):101.
[19]胡立峰.美国劳动法上雇佣自由原则的公共政策例外:形成、实践与反思[J].西南政法大学学报,2009,(3):68.
[20]柯振兴.美国劳动法[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2014:127.
[21]焦兴铠.劳工法与劳工权利之保障(美国劳工法论文集)[M].台北:月旦出版社股份有限公司,2001:39-66.
[22]王利明.违法责任论[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2003:572.
[23]郑尚元.劳动合同法的制度与理念[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2008:453-457.
[24]Mathew Boyle. The Relational Principle of Trust and Confidence[J]. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 2007,(27):633.
[25]Alvin L. Goldman. Labor Law in the USA[M]. Amsterdam:Wolters Kluwer Press, 2014:121.
[26]水町勇一郎.労働法[M].东京:有斐閣,2012:395.
[27]菅野和夫.労働法[M].东京:弘文堂,2012:856.
[28]毛景.报复性解雇认定标准及法律责任之构造———基于美国立法与司法经验的考察[J].上海财经大学学报,2017,(6):125.
[29]何建志.惩罚性赔偿金之法理与应用———论最适赔偿金额之判定[J].台大法学论丛,2002,(3):278-292.
[30]陈聪富.美国法上之惩罚性赔偿金制度[J].台大法学论丛,2003,(5):195-196.
[31]林德瑞.论惩罚性赔偿金[J].中正大学法学集刊,1998,(2):60-74.
[32]戴志杰.美国法上雇用人惩罚性赔偿金责任之研究(上)[J].政大法学评论,2011,(4):206-219.
[33]谢增毅.劳动法上经济补偿的范围及性质[J].中国法学,2011,(4):112.
(1)参见《报复性解雇认定标准及法律责任之构造——基于美国立法与司法经验的考察》,载《上海财经大学学报》2017年第6期;《报复性解雇:一个劳动法概念的解构》,载《中国人力资源开发》 2018年第6期;《美国报复性解雇制度及其借鉴》,载《国际经济法学刊》 2019年第1期。————
(1)参见Employment Right Act(1996)123(6).
(1)参见《劳动合同法》第47条。
© 2004-2018 中国地质图书馆版权所有 京ICP备05064691号 京公网安备11010802017129号 地址：北京市海淀区学院路29号 邮编：100083 电话：办公室：(+86 10)66554848；文献借阅、咨询服务、科技查新：66554700 |