Xu Kai v. Shanghai Baosteel Metallurgical Construction Corporation (Case of Dispute over the Infringement of the Right of Reputation)@# @# @# BASIC FACTS@# Plaintiff: Xu Kai, male, 44 years old, of Han nationality, resides at Dedu Road of Baoshan District, Shanghai.@# Defendant: Shanghai Baosteel Metallurgical Construction Corporation, address: No.1, Baoquan Road of Baoshan District, Shanghai.@# Legal Representative: Chen Ming, general manager of the corporation.@# Plaintiff Xu Kai brought a lawsuit to the People's Court of Baoshan District, Shanghai for the dispute over the infringement of the right of reputation with Shanghai Baosteel Metallurgical Construction Corporation (hereinafter referred to as SBMCC).@# Xu Kai claimed that: he worked at SBMCC since August 1983 and the two parties concluded an official labor contract. On January 4th, 2001, he submitted a written resignation report to the defendant, the principal in charge of the defendant agreed on his resignation by signing on the resignation report on January 8th, 2001, and he handed over the work as required by the defendant. After leaving the company, he started looking for jobs, but on many occasions, the entities he applied to firstly agreed to employ him but later refused to do so under various kinds of pretexts. In February 2005, he passed the interview of Shanghai Huilong Automation Technology Co., Ltd., but later this company refused to hire him under the pretext that he was dismissed by the entity he formerly worked for his disobeying of labor disciplines. Until then, he got to know that when handling resignation formalities for him, the defendant indicated that he was dismissed for disobeying labor disciplines. It was just the untrue statement recorded by the defendant which caused that the plaintiff can't get employed since the labor contract with the defendant was rescinded. Moreover, the defendant did not hand over the third page of the dismissal document to the plaintiff as required in a timely manner, and the plaintiff did not obtain the dismissal document from the defendant until August 2005. The plaintiff believed that the decision on rescinding the labor contract under the pretext of disobeying labor disciplines made by the defendant against the plaintiff after the labor contract had already been rescinded by both parties shall be invalid as the plaintiff shall not be an employee of the defendant any more upon the rescission of the labor contract, moreover, the plaintiff actually did not have any disobeying of labor disciplines at all. The defendant's above-mentioned act infringed upon the plaintiff's right of reputation, affected his reemployment and job-hunting and caused him unemployed for a long time, so the defendant shall undertake corresponding legal responsibility. Thus the plaintiff pleaded with the court to order the defendant to cease the infringement upon his right of reputation, make a formal written apology to him, eliminate ill effects, compensate 29,340 yuan for his economic losses (based on the minimum wage criterion of Shanghai's employees for 6 months in 2001, 12 months in 2002, 12 months in 2003, 12 months in 2004 and 8 months in 2005), and compensate 2,000 yuan as the consolation money for the mental injury suffered by him.@# ...... | | 徐恺诉上海宝钢冶金建设公司侵犯名誉权纠纷案@# 【裁判摘要】@# 名誉是指根据公民的观点、行为、作用、表现等所形成的关于公民品德、才干及其他素质的总体社会评价,是对公民社会价值的一般认识。公民享有名誉权,法律禁止用侮辱、诽谤等方式损害公民的名誉。用工单位对劳动者的劳动、工作情况作出的评价也是劳动者总体社会评价的重要组成部分。用工单位对劳动者作出不实、不良的评价,足以影响到劳动者今后的就业求职和工作生活的,构成对劳动者名誉权的侵犯。@# @# 原告:徐恺,男,44岁,汉族,住上海市宝山区德都路。@# 被告:上海宝钢冶金建设公司,住所地:上海市宝山区宝泉路1号。@# 法定代表人:陈明,该公司总经理。@# 原告徐恺因与被告上海宝钢冶金建设公司(以下简称宝冶公司)发生侵犯名誉权纠纷,向上海市宝山区人民法院提起诉讼。@# 原告徐恺诉称:原告于1983年8月至被告宝冶公司工作,双方签有正式劳动合同。2001年1月4日,原告向被告提交书面辞职报告,被告负责人于同年1月8日在原告的辞职报告上签字同意,原告亦按被告的要求进行了工作交接。原告离开被告处以后,在求职过程中,多次遇到用人单位起初同意录用,但随后又以各种理由拒绝录用的情况。2005年2月,原告到上海晖龙自动化技术有限公司应聘,面试合格后,该公司又以原告曾因违反劳动纪律被原单位解除劳动合同为由,拒绝录用原告。原告此时才知道被告在为原告办理退工手续时,注明原告是因违纪被解除劳动合同。正是被告作出的这种不实记载,致使原告在和被告解除劳动合同后至今未找到工作,长期无法就业。另被告未按规定及时将退工单第三联交给原告,原告至2005年8月才从被告处取得该退工单。原告认为,在双方解除劳动合同后,被告对已不属于其职工的原告再以违反劳动纪律为由作出解除劳动合同的决定,是无效的,且原告事实上也根本没有违反劳动纪律的行为。被告的上述行为侵害了原告的名誉权,并对原告的重新就业、求职造成影响,使原告长期找不到工作,被告理应承担相应的法律责任。请求判令被告停止侵害原告名誉权;向原告书面赔礼道歉,消除影响;赔偿原告经济损失29 340元(按每年上海市职工最低工资标准,2001年计算6个月、2002年计算12个月、2003年计算12个月、2004年计算12个月、2005年计算8个月);赔偿原告精神损害抚慰金2000元。@# 被告宝冶公司辩称:原告徐恺的辞职申请应向公司劳动人事部门提出,并由劳动人事部门决定是否与原告解除劳动合同。原告在向其主管领导提出辞职后,被告曾两次发函通知原告前来办理有关手续,但原告未来办理,故被告未与原告解除劳动合同。直到2004年5月,因原告持续旷工,被告才解除了与原告的劳动合同。在解除劳动合同前,被告仍按规定支付了原告工资并为原告缴纳了养老金等。被告认为,原告在递交了辞职报告后,尚未按规定与被告解除劳动合同即不来上班,持续旷工,违反了本公司的劳动纪律,故被告以原告违纪解除劳动合同是正确的,请求驳回原告的诉讼请求。@# 上海市宝山区人民法院查明:原告徐恺自1983年8月1日起进入被告宝冶公司工作。1996年12月,原告与被告签订“劳动合同书”,约定:宝冶公司机械设备安装工程公司(以下简称机装公司)根据生产需要,录用原告。合同的期限为无固定期限,自1997年1月1日起,若双方约定的解除或终止条件出现,劳动合同即解除或终止。双方在合同中还约定:经双方协商一致,同意解除劳动合同的,双方可以解除劳动合同;原告严重违反公司劳动纪律及规章制度的,被告可解除劳动合同;原告提前 30日书面通知被告解除劳动合同,并履行了劳动合同约定的赔偿、违约条款,原告可以随时解除劳动合同。2001年1月4日,原告向被告提交书面辞职报告。同年1月 8日,机装公司副经理杨华兴签字同意了原告的辞职申请。当日,原告将工作移交给被告。后原告一直未到被告处上班。2001年5月30日,被告因原告于2001年1月提出辞职后一直未上班,也未办理任何请假手续,解除了与原告的劳动关系。同日,被告开出上海市职工退工通知书,在通知书上写明:因原告违纪解除,于2001年5月30日退工。@# ...... |