Under Certain Circumstances: Employees Have The Right To Request Reinstatement After Resigning.

After resigning to the unit, the staff also asked for the resumption of labor relations, which is not uncommon.

But in the face of the employee's request for reinstatement, the employer often disagrees.

Can employees not be required to be reinstated after their resignation? In fact, in some specific cases, employees are entitled to claim reinstatement.

[case] in April 9, 2016, Xiao Li Li submitted his written resignation to his company.

In view of Xiao Linli's post exposure to toxic substances such as dust, harmful substances, the company then according to the relevant provisions, arranged for Xiao Linli to the county centers for Disease Control and prevention for physical examination.

Because the physical examination result is not abnormal, the company has handled the resignation procedure for it.

After feeling ill for a week, Xiao Li Li went to the provincial people's Hospital for a physical examination, showing suspected pneumoconiosis.

The result of the review of the Centers for Disease Control and prevention is chest and lung abnormalities.

Xiao Linli asked to resume labor relations with the company, but was refused by the company.

Xiao Linli had no choice but to apply for labor arbitration, and the labor and personnel dispute arbitration committee supported his request.

The company refused to accept the arbitration and asked the court to cancel the arbitral award, but it was rejected by the court.

Comment: "post"

"The fifty-fifth clause and the second paragraph stipulate:" the employing unit shall promptly arrange for the diagnosis of suspected occupational diseases, and shall not terminate or terminate the labor contract concluded during the diagnosis or medical observation of suspected occupational diseases. "

"

"Article forty-second (1) also states:" the workers who engage in occupational hazard work are not engaged in occupational health examination before leaving work, or if they are suspected of occupational diseases during diagnosis or medical observation period, the employer may not terminate the labor contract.

That is to say, during the period of diagnosis or medical observation, maintaining the labor relationship is the legal obligation of the employer and the legal right of the laborer if the worker belongs to the suspected occupational disease patient and is in the period of diagnosis or medical observation.

Xiao Linli applied to the company to terminate the labor contract without knowing that he had been suspected of occupational disease, so the company should resume its labor relations.

[case] lanlai min applied for a company as a salesperson, and agreed to make a salary of 1000 yuan plus commission.

Only a week later, the company leader told her that because of the serious failure of the production line and unable to raise funds, it could not be repaired for months or even six months. Lan Ruimin was advised not to stick to the basic salary, but rather to leave as soon as possible.

Lan Ruimin felt reasonable and submitted his resignation to the company.

But she soon learned that things are not what leaders say.

Instead, the company saw that its product suddenly appeared to be in short supply, and felt that the Commission was too high, deliberately fabricating facts, hiding the truth, and tempting her to resign.

But in response to Lan Ruimin's request for reinstatement, the company refused.

Comment: the company's behavior constitutes fraud.

Fraud is a betrayal of the principle of good faith established in the labor contract law. It refers to the act of employing a unit to inform workers of false facts, or intentionally concealing the true situation, so as to induce workers to make wrong intentions.

In order to reduce royalty expenses, the company tempted Lan Ruimin to resign, and Lan Ruimin submitted his resignation because he did not know the truth.

In addition, the Supreme People's court hears

The interpretation of several issues in the application of the law (three) "Tenth stipulates:" the agreement reached between the laborer and the employing unit on terminating or terminating the relevant labor contract, payment of wages, overtime, financial compensation or compensation shall not violate the mandatory provisions of laws and administrative regulations, and shall not be fraudulent, coercion or dangerous.

The case is just the opposite, so the company should resume working relations with its employees.

[case] Jiang Suru is a worker of a labor dispatch unit. The dispatched unit sent Jiang Suru to a professional training institution for special technical training, and signed a three year service contract with Jiang Suru, and agreed that if Jiang Suru broke the contract, he must compensate for training loss of 50 thousand yuan.

After the training, Jiang Suru was sent to an employment company.

Because Jiang Suru worked very hard in the employment company, and even felt that he had no future in the employment company, he submitted his written resignation to the employment company on 15 June 2016, which indicated that he would leave on 30 days.

Who knows, after the expiration, the dispatch unit refused to accept Jiang Suru on the grounds of its resignation, and asked Jiang Suru to pay 50 thousand yuan for breach of contract.

Comment: Although the thirty-seventh clause of the labor contract law stipulates: "the worker can notify the employing unit in writing in advance thirty days, and can terminate the labor contract."

However, it is worth noting that the workers mentioned in it refer only to the employing units rather than the employing units.

The core difference between employing units and employing units is that the former is labor relations with workers, while the latter is labor relations.

If the worker notifications is the employing unit, it is not applicable.

And the employing unit in this case is a dispatch unit, not a employment company.

The fifty-eighth article of the labor contract law points out: "the labor dispatch unit is the employing unit referred to in this law, and the employer's obligation to the laborer shall be fulfilled."

Because Jiang Suru submitted his resignation to the employment company instead of sending it to the sending unit, he decided that the resignation had no legal effect on the dispatched unit, and the dispatch unit could not take this as the basis for Jiang Suru to resign, and subsequently refused to accept Jiang Suru, or even asked for a penalty for Chiang Su Ru.