Workplace Newcomers Should Be On Guard Against Job Traps.

In April 15, 2005, zhang signed a postgraduate employment agreement with a University of science and technology and his training unit, a university in Hebei. He agreed that a certain science and technology college would accept Zhang's work in the faculty, and the service period was five years.

After graduation, Zhang went to a science and Technology College for 5 years.

In May 18, 2010, the Institute of science and Technology issued a notice in the newspaper that the labor relationship between the two parties was terminated on the 18 day of April 2010 according to the employment agreement.

Zhang complained to the court on the grounds that he requested the unit to terminate the labor relationship invalid.

After the court held that the school of science and technology, based on the five year service period stipulated in the employment agreement, has no basis for terminating the relationship with Zhang's labor contract. Accordingly, it decided that the science and Technology Institute terminated its labor contract relationship with Zhang.

Main points of law:

It is only the basis for graduates and employers to determine the employment intention. They do not have the contents and functions of the labor contract. The specific contents of the labor rights and obligations of graduates and employers need to be specified in the labor contract by both sides.

If the employer fails to conclude a written labor contract with the employee for a full year after the day of his own employment, he has already signed an unfixed term labor contract with the employee on the day of his own employment. Therefore, in this case, the employer's termination of the employment contract which has been stipulated in the employment agreement has been regarded as an unfixed period of labor contract, of course, is invalid.

Wang Mou joined a financial advisor in 2011, and the two sides signed a 2 year contract.

。

In 2012, the two sides signed the agreement on the settlement of non Beijing employees, which stated that the company had handled the procedures for the settlement of staff such as Wang Mou's non Beijing household registration staff. Wang had three years' service period for the company. If it was not for the reason of the company, Wang had proposed to suspend payment of labor union and pay thirty thousand yuan to the company.

Wang did not provide labor after he resigned from the company in October 2013.

The company asked Wang Mou to pay thirty thousand yuan for breach of contract on the grounds of Wang Mou agreement.

The court held that in the case, the agreement between the two parties to liquidate damages of thirty thousand yuan violated the "

"It is an invalid clause, and the company is defeated.

Main points of law: the dispute in this case focuses on the legality of the agreement between the employer and the employee on the account breaking account.

The labor contract law makes an exhaustive enumeration of the liquidated damages stipulated by employers and workers. Only when the laborers receive professional and technical training, competition restrictions, and conservative business secrets can they agree to liquidate damages.

In addition, the employer shall not agree with the laborer that the worker shall bear the penalty for breach of contract.

Thus, it is invalid for the employer and the employee to settle the liquidated damages stipulated in the service period after the settlement has been completed, and is not legally binding on the laborers.