欢迎扫描下方二维码关注： 进入职场 签订劳动合同是每位求职者必经的环节 那么，劳动合同应该何时签？ 哪些陷阱务必避开？ 看这篇就知道！ 这些陷阱，带你逐一击破 求职者在签订合同时，要 仔细审查 ，对于"霸王"条款 可以提出异议 ，如果合法权益受到侵害时，也可以通过 申请仲裁 等主张条款无效。 02 "抵押"合同 一些公司可能会要求员工，在合同中同意 将身份证件扣押或个人财产或财务权益作为抵押 ，以确保员工履行合同。 这种情况下，如果员工不按合同要求履行，可能会面临无法取回证件或财产损失。 求职者不要将身份证件和个人财产抵押给公司，根据法律规定合同中 不得设置此类条款 ，如果身份证件或个人财产已被公司扣押，可以向劳动 01 "霸王"合同 所谓"霸王"合同， 是指公司在劳动合同中， 设置了公司可以随意解雇员工或者免除公司责任、排除员工权益的条款 ，以及 限制员工 辞职权 的条款等。 这种合同可能严重损害员工的权益，但是由于违反法律规定也会被认定为无效条款。 监察部门投诉。 03 "竞限"合同 竞业限制或者竞业禁止合同，将 限制员工在离开公司后一段时间内，不能加入竞争对手或自己创业经营同类业务 。 一般会在重要岗位 ...

Core Viewpoint - The court ruled that the relationship between the streamer Wu and the agency is a civil cooperation relationship rather than a labor relationship, rejecting Wu's request to confirm a labor relationship [1][2]. Group 1: Contractual Details - The contract between the agency and Wu was signed in August 2022, with a duration of three years, stipulating that Wu must live stream for at least 135 hours per month and 25 days per month, with a revenue split of 50% for both parties [1]. - The agency provided Wu with a guaranteed minimum income of 11,500 yuan per month for five months, while the live streaming account remained under Wu's personal ownership [1]. Group 2: Court's Reasoning - The court found that the relationship did not meet the criteria for a labor relationship, as the contract lacked necessary labor contract terms, and the agency's services aligned with civil cooperation characteristics [2]. - Wu had autonomy over the live streaming schedule and location, and the agency's guidance did not constitute labor management, with revenue distribution and guarantees executed as per the contract [2]. - The court emphasized that a labor relationship requires three attributes: personal subordination, economic subordination, and organizational subordination, which were not present in this case [2].

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the legal implications of "mixed employment" practices where multiple related companies manage the same employee, highlighting a recent court case that clarifies the responsibilities of these companies under new legal interpretations [1][2][6]. Group 1: Legal Framework - The Supreme People's Court's new interpretation (Interpretation II) provides a legal basis for recognizing labor relations and responsibilities in cases of mixed employment [2][6]. - The new rules specify that if an employee has contracts with multiple related companies, they can choose which company to hold accountable for labor rights violations [6][7]. Group 2: Case Summary - The case involves an employee, Xiao Wu, who had contracts with three different companies and sought compensation after her contract was terminated due to one company's dissolution [1][4]. - The first-instance court ruled that the two companies involved were jointly responsible for unpaid vacation wages, but denied compensation for unlawful termination, leading to an appeal by Xiao Wu [1][4][5]. Group 3: Implications for Companies - Companies are advised to standardize their employment practices and ensure compliance with labor laws to avoid legal disputes arising from mixed employment situations [7]. - The new interpretation aims to prevent companies from evading responsibilities by designating weaker entities as employers, thus protecting employees' rights [7].

Group 1 - The core viewpoint of the article is that university students who obtain their graduation certificates during internships should be recognized as having an employment relationship, as demonstrated by a recent arbitration case in Beijing [1][2]. - The case involved a student, Feng, who began an internship in early 2022 and continued working after graduating in January 2023, but the company refused to convert the internship agreement into a labor contract despite being aware of his graduation [1]. - The Beijing Arbitration Committee ruled that there was a labor relationship between Feng and the company for 10 months in 2023, ordering the company to pay compensation for the unlawful termination of the internship agreement [1][2]. Group 2 - The arbitration committee emphasized that once an intern completes their studies and obtains a graduation certificate, their legal status changes fundamentally, necessitating a transition from an internship agreement to a labor contract [2]. - The article also highlights that other selected arbitration cases focus on issues related to technological innovation, international relations, and the challenges posed by AI technology in the job market, as well as risks associated with cross-border operations [2].

Core Viewpoint - The case highlights the importance of clearly defining labor relationships and responsibilities in contractual agreements, particularly in retail environments where multiple parties may be involved in employment arrangements [1][2]. Group 1: Labor Relationship Determination - The court ruled that there was no legal labor relationship between the employee, Xiao Li, and the supermarket, as the management and payment structures indicated that the bakery manager was the actual employer [2]. - Xiao Li's work was managed by the bakery manager, and her salary was paid through personal channels rather than the supermarket's official accounts, which further supported the court's decision [2]. - The court emphasized that the determination of labor relationships relies on two attributes: personal subordination (management relationship) and economic subordination (salary payment) [2]. Group 2: Implications for Workers and Employers - The case serves as a reminder for workers in retail environments to clarify the contracting party and payment sources upon employment, and to retain key evidence such as contracts and payment records for potential disputes [3]. - For businesses, especially in malls and supermarkets, it is crucial to clearly define responsibilities in contracts to avoid mixed management and protect against potential liabilities [3].

Core Points - The case involves a labor dispute regarding whether a labor relationship was established during pre-job training and if an injury sustained during this period can be classified as a work-related injury [1][2] - The court ruled that a labor relationship existed between the employee and the restaurant, as the employee was engaged in training arranged by the employer, which was directly related to the restaurant's main business [2] - The court emphasized that if the pre-job training is necessary, employer-arranged, and the employee is under the employer's management, a labor relationship can be recognized [2] Summary by Sections - **Labor Relationship Establishment**: The court found that communication and arrangements for pre-job training indicated a mutual agreement to establish a labor relationship, despite the absence of a formal written contract [2] - **Injury Recognition**: The court highlighted that injuries occurring during employer-arranged training can be recognized as work-related injuries if a factual labor relationship exists [2][3] - **Next Steps**: Following the confirmation of the labor relationship, the case will proceed to work injury recognition and compensation negotiations [3]

Group 1 - The establishment of a labor relationship occurs from the day the employer starts using the worker, and a written labor contract must be signed within one month of employment [5][6] - Employers must verify key clauses related to personal rights when signing labor contracts to protect their legal rights [3][4] - Written labor contracts are mandatory for establishing labor relationships, while non-full-time work can have verbal agreements, but relevant documentation should be retained [7] Group 2 - Employers are required to keep the text of labor contracts for at least two years after termination or dissolution for reference [10] - Both the employer and the employee should retain a copy of the labor contract [9] - Employees are not required to return the labor contract to the employer after leaving the job [13]

Core Viewpoint - The Jiangsu Provincial High People's Court and the Provincial Department of Human Resources and Social Security have jointly released typical cases for handling labor disputes in 2024, focusing on various issues such as non-compete agreements, probation periods, parental leave, medical autonomy, labor subcontracting, resume fraud, injuries to older workers, and collective wage arrears [1] Group 1: Non-Compete Agreements - Non-compete agreements have boundaries, and the right to choose employment is protected. A case involving an employee who was required to pay a penalty for violating a non-compete clause was dismissed as the employee did not have access to trade secrets [2][3] Group 2: Probation Periods - The probation period is not a "vacuum of rights," and workers' rights are protected by law. A case where an employer terminated an employee during the probation period without valid reasons resulted in the employer being ordered to pay compensation for unlawful termination [4][5] Group 3: Parental Leave - The rights of workers to parental leave are emphasized, promoting a humane work environment. A case where an employee was wrongfully terminated for taking parental leave was ruled in favor of the employee, highlighting the legal support for parental leave rights [6][8] Group 4: Medical Autonomy - Employers must respect employees' medical autonomy. A case where an employee was dismissed for not providing a specific type of medical leave certificate was ruled unlawful, as the employer's requirements were deemed excessive [9][10] Group 5: Labor Subcontracting - The distinction between labor subcontracting agreements and actual labor relationships is clarified. A case confirmed that a worker injured while performing tasks under a subcontracting agreement was recognized as having a labor relationship with the company [11][12] Group 6: Resume Fraud - Employees must maintain integrity in job applications. A case involving an employee who falsified their resume led to the court ruling the employment contract invalid, requiring the employee to return part of their salary [13][14] Group 7: Rights of Older Workers - The rights of older workers are protected, and companies must ensure compliance with labor laws regarding their employment. A case confirmed that an older worker injured on the job is entitled to workers' compensation benefits [15][16] Group 8: Collective Wage Arrears - A collaborative approach to resolving collective wage disputes has proven effective. A case where a company owed wages to workers was resolved through a coordinated effort involving the court and local labor dispute resolution centers, resulting in the workers receiving their owed wages [17][19]

Core Viewpoint - The court ruled that a worker, Wang, had an employment relationship with a repair company despite the existence of a service agreement that classified him as a "freelancer" [1][2][3][4] Group 1: Legal Relationship - The court emphasized the principle of "fact priority" in determining the legal relationship between companies and workers in new employment forms, focusing on actual rights and obligations [2] - Although Wang signed a service agreement with a crowdsourcing company, the court found that the actual working conditions indicated an employment relationship with the repair company [2][3] Group 2: Work Conditions - Wang was subject to attendance management by the repair company, working 8 hours a day and 40 hours a week, which aligns with the legal definition of employment [2][3] - The repair company determined Wang's pay and processed payments through the crowdsourcing company, indicating a lack of autonomy in his work [1][3] Group 3: Court's Conclusion - The court concluded that Wang's working conditions and payment structure demonstrated a clear dependency and economic subordination, fulfilling the criteria for an employment relationship [3] - The court confirmed the existence of an employment relationship between Wang and the repair company for the period from May 1, 2022, to November 1, 2022 [4]

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the recognition and management of work-related injuries, particularly in the context of construction projects and the implications for insurance coverage and legal responsibilities. Group 1: Work Injury Insurance Recognition - Work injury recognition should focus on the work-related cause, with work location and time serving as auxiliary factors. Evidence of injury during work hours, even when working from home, should not affect the recognition of work-related injuries [15][16]. - The determination of work time should consider legally defined working hours, including overtime and specific tasks assigned by the employer [15][16]. Group 2: Construction Project Insurance Management - Construction companies must manage all workers under a dynamic real-name system and report changes to the social insurance agency. Insurance benefits should be based on reported personnel [17]. - If a worker is injured but not reported in the insurance system due to the employer's failure to update records, the insurance fund may still be liable if the worker meets certain criteria [17]. Group 3: Legal Procedures for Injury Claims - Workers employed by contractors without labor qualifications must undergo injury recognition procedures to claim insurance benefits. Courts cannot recognize injuries as work-related if the recognition application is not submitted within the legal timeframe [18]. - For workers who have their identity misused, if they are recognized as injured, they can still claim insurance benefits, provided the employer has complied with insurance registration requirements [19][20]. Group 4: Causation and Claims for Death Benefits - The family of a worker who dies during the leave period due to work-related injuries must establish a causal relationship to claim death benefits. The social insurance agency is responsible for this recognition [21][23]. - If the family or employer disputes the agency's decision on the recognition of death benefits, they must provide evidence of their application to the agency [22][23].