When Employees Are Injured By Work-Related Injuries, There Are Four Mistakes.

The law does not rely on strength and weakness to decide whether to win or to win. It is only based on the principle of law.

When the accident happened on the way to dinner, the company claimed that he was no longer an employee.

Mr. Shi, a citizen, reflects his experience in sending urgent takeaway nets.

The company responded that Mr. Shi's meal was purely personal and had nothing to do with the company.

(according to the April 12th southeast Net News)

Dining is clearly the behavior of an enterprise, but the enterprise is said to be "purely personal behavior".

The reason for the person in charge of the enterprise is: the day before the incident, because of the wage settlement problems, he has clearly told Mr. Shi not to go to work again, but Mr. Shi insisted on working the next day.

Since then, it may be that the system has dispatched some problems, and some of the orders have been sent to Mr. Shi's mobile phone again.

"I have asked him not to go to work, and even if he receives the order message, he should not go, but he insists on delivering the meal. That is him.

The problem has nothing to do with the company. "

But Mr. Shi did not think so. He said meals were allocated according to the company's orders, and how could it be a personal problem?

Do not recognize it

Is it possible to take no responsibility? I think it is useless to do so, because the determination of labor relations is not only based on the labor contract, but as long as there is a factual labor relationship, the enterprise should bear the obligations prescribed by law.

The principle of determining the work-related injury by law is that the worker has infringed upon the person because of improper operation or other reasons in his work or in the course of his work.

Mr. Shi is engaged in production activities according to the assignment of enterprises. He encountered in the process of delivering meals.

Causing personal injury, of course, should be identified as work-related injuries.

In my opinion, the way of denying the company to shirk its responsibilities is like stealing the bell, because if there is a factual labor relationship, even if the contract is not signed, it is difficult for the enterprise to take responsibility.

Looking at this labor dispute, the enterprise refuses to assume responsibility. There are four mistakes:

The tenth provision of the labor contract law stipulates that a written labor contract shall be concluded in the establishment of labor relations.

It is a mistake for the company to recruit employees but not to sign contracts.

The thirty-ninth article of the labor contract law clearly stipulates that the dismissal of employees can only be dismissed under the six circumstances of "serious dereliction of duty, malpractice, and serious harm to employers".

Mr Shi obviously does not have any of the above faults, and his dismissal is obviously illegal.

This is the two mistake.

Besides, on the issue of employee dismissal, the fortieth article of the labor contract law has made the following stipulations: the employer can notify the laborer in writing thirty days ahead of time, or pay the employee one month's wages, and may terminate the labor contract.

Today, the company only hastily orally notifications second days do not come to work, which is obviously not in line with the dismissal procedure, which is the three mistake.

The state has made compensation measures for the dismissal of employees, so as to safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of employees.

The forty-seventh provision of the labor contract law stipulates that economic compensation shall be paid to laborers according to the number of years worked by the laborers in their units and the wages paid for one month per year.

For more than six months with less than one year, the financial compensation for half a month's wages will be paid to the laborers for a period of one year or less than six months.

This company's dismissal of employees is not giving any compensation. It is obviously a mistake. This is the four mistake.