>>>welcome visitor, haven't logged in. Login
Subscribe Now Contact us  
Font Size:  A A A Search “Fabao” Window English 中文 = 简体  繁体
  Favorite   DownLoad   Print
 
Guo Yi v. Jiangsu Yifeng Pharmacy Chain Co., Ltd. (A Case about Labor Disputes)
郭懿诉江苏益丰大药房连锁有限公司劳动争议案
【法宝引证码】
  • Type of Dispute: Civil-->Labor & Employment
  • Legal document: Judgment
  • Judgment date: 04-07-2009
  • Procedural status: Trial at Second Instance

Guo Yi v. Jiangsu Yifeng Pharmacy Chain Co., Ltd. (A Case about Labor Disputes)
(A Case about Labor Disputes)
郭懿诉江苏益丰大药房连锁有限公司劳动争议案

Guo Yi v. Jiangsu Yifeng Pharmacy Chain Co., Ltd.
(A Case about Labor Disputes)@#
@#
@#
BASIC FACTS@#
Plaintiff: Guo Yi, male, 22, residing at Chananren Garden, Nanjing City.@#
Defendant: Jiangsu Yifeng Pharmacy Chain Co., Ltd., domiciled at Hanzhong Road, Baixia District, Nanjing City.@#
Legal Representative: Gao Yi, chairman of the board of directors of this company.@#
Guo Yi, the plaintiff, bought an action in the People's Court of Baixia District of Nanjing City, Jiangsu Province against Jiangsu Yifeng Pharmacy Chain Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Yifeng Company”), the defendant, for labor disputes.@#
The plaintiff, Guo Yi, claimed that: he graduated in 2008 from Nanjing Mochou Vocational School. In October 2007, he made a job registration with the defendant, and upon examination by the Human Resources Department and General Manager of the defendant, he was put on probation. On October 30, 2007, the two parties entered into a labor contract for a term of three years from October 30, 2007 to December 30, 2010. In July 2008, on the ground that the existence of an employment relationship between the defendant and the plaintiff was doubtful, the defendant filed an arbitration application with the Labor Dispute Arbitration Committee of Baixia District of Nanjing City, requesting a confirmation that the labor relationship between the two parties did not exist. On August 19, 2008, the Labor Dispute Arbitration Committee of Baixia District of Nanjing City decided to terminate the arbitration procedures, because the plaintiff was a school student who did not meet the requirements for employment and was ineligible for entering into a labor relationship and the disputes between the plaintiff and the defendant were not within the scope of labor disputes to be settled. Against this decision, the plaintiff alleged that he and the defendant were in a labor relationship and the labor contract signed by them was true, legal and valid. He requested the court to confirm the validity of the labor contract between the plaintiff and the defendant.@#
......

 

郭懿诉江苏益丰大药房连锁有限公司劳动争议案@#
[裁判摘要]@#
即将毕业的大专院校在校学生以就业为目的与用人单位签订劳动合同,且接受用人单位管理,按合同约定付出劳动;用人单位在明知求职者系在校学生的情况下,仍与之订立劳动合同并向其发放劳动报酬的,该劳动合同合法有效,应当认定双方之间形成劳动合同关系。@#
@#
原告:郭懿。@#
被告:江苏益丰大药房连锁有限公司。@#
法定代表人:高毅,该公司董事长。@#
原告郭懿因与被告江苏益丰大药房连锁有限公司(以下简称益丰公司)发生劳动争议纠纷,向江苏省南京市白下区人民法院提起诉讼。@#
原告郭懿诉称:原告系南京市莫愁职业高级中学2008届毕业生。2007年10月原告至被告处进行求职登记,经被告人力资源部和总经理审核,同意试用。2007年 10月30日双方签订劳动合同,为期三年,自2007年10月30日起至2010年12月 30日止。2008年7月,被告益丰公司以对原、被告间是否存在劳动关系持有异议为由,向南京市白下区劳动争议仲裁委员会提起仲裁申请,请求确认原、被告之间的劳动关系不成立。南京市白下区劳动争议仲裁委员会于2008年8月19日做出仲裁决定,以原告系在校学生,不符合就业条件,不具有建立劳动关系的主体资格,原、被告间的争议不属于劳动争议处理范围为由,决定终结了仲裁活动。原告对此不服,认为原、被告之间存在劳动关系,双方签订的劳动合同真实、合法、有效,请求法院判决确认原、被告之间的劳动合同有效。@#
被告益丰公司辩称:原告郭懿与被告签订劳动合同时的身份为在校学生,根据原劳动部《关于贯彻执行<中华人民共和国劳动法>若干问题的意见》的规定,在校学生不具备劳动关系的主体资格。《工伤保险条例》也没有将在校学生纳入参保范围,亦充分说明在校学生不属于劳动者的范畴。同时原告也不具备劳动合同约定的录用条件。被告在招聘简章及与原告签订的劳动合同中约定的录用条件是具备中专以上学历,而原告于2008年7月方毕业,其签约时并不具备被告要求的录用条件。因此,原、被告之间的合同名为劳动合同,实为实习合同,原、被告之间所建立的不是劳动关系,不属于劳动法调整的劳动法律关系。请求依法驳回原告的起诉。@#
@#
南京市白下区人民法院一审查明:@#
原告郭懿系江苏广播电视大学(南京市莫愁中等专业学校办学点)药学专业 2008届毕业生,于2008年7月毕业。2007年10月26日原告郭懿向被告益丰公司进行求职登记,并在被告益丰公司的求职人员登记表中登记其为南京市莫愁职业高级中学2008届毕业生,2007年是其实习年。 2007年10月30日原告与被告签订劳动合同书一份,期限三年,从2007年10月 30日起至2010年12月30日止;其中试用期60天,从2007年10月30日起至 2007年12月30日止。合同还约定,录用条件之一为具备中专或中专以上学历;原告从事营业员工作;试用期满后月工资收入不少于900元,试用期工资标准不低于同工种同岗位职工工资的80%等。2008年 7月21日,被告向南京市白下区劳动争议仲裁委员会提出仲裁申请,请求确认其与原告之间的劳动关系不成立。南京市白下区劳动争议仲裁委员会经审查,依据原劳动部《关于贯彻执行<中华人民共和国劳动法>若干问题的意见》,于2008年8月19日作出仲裁决定,以原告系在校学生,不符合就业条件,不具有建立劳动关系的主体资格,在校学生勤工助学或实习与用人单位之间的关系不属于《中华人民共和国劳动法》的调整范围,故被告与原告之间的争议,不属劳动争议处理范围为由,决定终结了被告诉原告的仲裁活动,并于2008年8月27日送达了仲裁决定书。@#
......


Dear visitor, as a premium member of this database, you will get complete access to all content.Please go premium and get more.

1. To become a premium member, please call 400-810-8266 Ext. 171.

2. Binding to the account with access to this database.

3. Apply for a trial account.

4. To get instant access to a document, you can Pay Amount 【¥400.00】 for your single purchase.
 
您好:您现在要进入的是北大法宝英文库会员专区。
如您是我们英文用户可直接 登录,进入会员专区查询您所需要的信息;如您还不是我们 的英文用户;您可通过网上支付进行单篇购买,支付成功后即可立即查看本篇内容。
Tel: +86 (10) 82689699, +86 (10) 82668266 ext. 153
Mobile: +86 13311570713
Fax: +86 (10) 82668268
E-mail:info@chinalawinfo.com
     
     
Scan QR Code and Read on Mobile
【法宝引证码】        北大法宝en.pkulaw.cn
Message: Please kindly comment on the present translation.
 
Confirmation Code:
Click image to reset code
 
  Translations are by lawinfochina.com, and we retain exclusive copyright over content found on our website except for content we publish as authorized by respective copyright owners or content that is publicly available from government sources.

Due to differences in language, legal systems, and culture, English translations of Chinese law are for reference purposes only. Please use the official Chinese-language versions as the final authority. Lawinfochina.com and its staff will not be directly or indirectly liable for use of materials found on this website.

We welcome your comments and suggestions, which assist us in continuing to improve the quality of our materials as we dynamically expand content.
 
Home | About us | Disclaimer | Chinese