1.基本案情
    劳动者2008年与用人单位建立劳动关系后，一直在用人单位工作。期间，用人单位多次开展预防员工违法犯罪的警示教育活动，长期警示教育员工不得吸毒。2021年8月，劳动者因吸食毒品被公安机关查获。公安机关作出《行政处罚决定书》，认定劳动者自2012年起多次吸食毒品，并对劳动者作出行政拘留的处罚决定。用人单位获知前述事实后，立即启动对劳动者的处分程序，于2021年9月决定给予劳动者开除处分并解除其劳动合同，并通知劳动者。劳动者认为用人单位不能依据《公职人员政务处分法》对其进行政务处分，不服处理结果，向劳动人事争议仲裁委员会申请劳动争议仲裁，请求撤销用人单位的处分决定并恢复其公职。劳动人事争议仲裁委员会审查后裁决撤销用人单位的处分决定。用人单位不服仲裁裁决，向人民法院提起诉讼，请求法院判决确认用人单位开除处分及解除劳动合同合法。

    本案一审法院判决确认用人单位作出的开除处分及解除劳动合同合法有效。劳动者不服一审判决提起上诉。二审法院经过审理判决驳回上诉，维持原判。

 

 

    本案主要争议焦点在于：1.用人单位制定的劳动用工规章制度能否作为认定用人单位与劳动者间权利义务关系的依据？2.用人单位能否给予劳动者开除处分并解除与劳动者订立的劳动合同？是否应当给予劳动者经济补偿？3.用人单位开除并解除与劳动者签订的劳动合同时，是否已经履行法定程序？

争议焦点一：用人单位制定的劳动用工规章制度能否作为认定用人单位与劳动者间权利义务关系的依据？  

    判断用人单位制定的劳动用工规章制度是否合法，关键在于用人单位制定的劳动用工规章制度是否符合《最高人民法院关于审理劳动争议案件适用法律问题的解释（一）》（法释〔2020〕26号）第五十条的规定。该法条规定：“用人单位根据劳动合同法第四条规定，通过民主程序制定的规章制度，不违反国家法律、行政法规及政策规定，并已向劳动者公示的，可以作为确定双方权利义务的依据。”

    劳动者认为，《公职人员政务处分法》没有规定用人单位可以引用其中的规定，故用人单位在制定劳动用工规章制度时，直接将《公职人员政务处分法》的规定引入其中的做法违反了法律的强制性规定，因此，用人单位制定的劳动用工规章制度不能作为认定用人单位与劳动者间权利义务关系的依据。

    用人单位的代理律师提出，第一，劳动用工规章制度在制定时已经职工代表大会讨论，已经充分征求并听取了工会和职工的意见，并经民主程序表决通过；第二，用人单位在制定劳动用工规章制度时，将《公职人员政务处分法》的规定引入其中，属于用人单位规章制度对相关法律法规的吸收和内化。同时，《公职人员政务处分法》68个条文当中，没有任何一个法条禁止用人单位将法律规定的违法行为及其处理措施吸收到用人单位的规章制度中，禁止用人单位对吸毒的劳动者予以开除处分。根据“法无禁止即可为”的原则，既然《公职人员政务处分法》没有禁止用人单位将法律规定的违法行为及其处理措施吸收到用人单位的规章制度中，没有禁止用人单位对吸毒劳动者予以开除处分，那么用人单位将《公职人员政务处分法》的部分规定引入其中，就不存在违反法律强制性规定的问题。劳动者虽然主张用人单位引用《公职人员政务处分法》制定劳动用工规章制度违法，但没有指明违反哪部法律、法规的哪条哪款，其诉讼主张没有法律依据；第三，用人单位已经将劳动用工规章制度进行了公示并告知、提醒劳动者阅知，劳动者也已经对用人单位的劳动用工规章制度进行了阅读和学习，已清楚知晓该制度的生效时间及相关内容。因此，用人单位制定的劳动用工规章制度符合《最高人民法院关于审理劳动争议案件适用法律问题的解释（一）》（法释〔2020〕26号）第五十条的规定，且劳动用工规章制度中有关劳动者的权利和义务的约定明确、具体，应当作为处理本案的依据。用人单位律师的观点得到了本案一审、二审法院的认可。

 

    劳动者认为，开除是劳动者违反劳动纪律和企业内部规章制度的行政处分，也就是说劳动者被开除的前提是违反劳动纪律或者违反企业内部规章制度。本案中，劳动者吸食毒品而被行政处罚的行为不属于劳动用工规章制度规定的范畴，也不是劳动合同约定的应当被解除劳动合同的行为。同时，开除是用人单位基于职工违反纪律、单位规章制度所作的处罚，开除时不需给予经济补偿；

    但是，解除劳动合同是基于单位减员的需要或职工不能胜任工作或违反劳动合同的约定所做的劳动合同到期前提前终止劳动合同的行为，解除时需向劳动者支付经济补偿。

    用人单位的代理律师提出，本案中，用人单位可以且应当给予劳动者开除处分并解除与劳动者订立的劳动合同。理由在于：第一，劳动者在国家铁腕禁毒，用人单位持续、长期开展禁毒宣传教育的背景下，仍执迷不悟、多次吸食毒品，该行为性质极其恶劣，后果极其严重，其应当被开除并被解除劳动合同；第二，《劳动合同法》规定，劳动者严重违反用人单位规章制度的，用人单位可以解除劳动合同。《公职人员政务处分法》规定，吸食、注射毒品，予以撤职或开除。用人单位将《公职人员政务处分法》规定的违法行为和处罚措施转化为劳动合同法规定的用人单位规章制度，并依据规章制度开除劳动者并解除其劳动合同，有明确的法律依据；第三，用人单位制定的劳动用工规章制度明确规定，吸食、注射毒品的，予以撤职或开除。员工受到开除处分的，单位应按规定履行相应程序后解除与其签订的劳动合同。根据前述分析，用人单位制定的劳动用工规章制度符合《最高人民法院关于审理劳动争议案件适用法律问题的解释（一）》（法释〔2020〕26号）第五十条的规定，故应当作为确认用人单位开除劳动者并解除其劳动合同的依据；第四，禁毒工作事关国家安全、民族兴衰、人民福祉，厉行禁毒是党和政府的一贯主张和立场。在这样的大背景下，对长期吸食毒品的劳动者，如果不解除与其签订的劳动合同并给予开除处分，这将严重影响用人单位正常的劳动用工管理，必将与社会主义核心价值观背道而驰。此外，用人单位给予劳动者开除处分，属于用人单位的自主用工管理行为，且该开除行为与解除劳动合同是一种并列和包容的关系，开除处分对劳动者权益的实际影响，等同于解除劳动合同。用人单位律师的观点得到了本案一审、二审法院的认可。

    关于是否应给予劳动者经济补偿，用人单位应当给予劳动者经济补偿的情形规定在《劳动合同法》第四十六条。根据该法条的规定，用人单位依据《劳动合同法》第三十九条解除劳动合同的，无须向劳动者支付经济补偿。而在本案中，用人单位解除与劳动者签订的劳动合同的依据正是《劳动合同法》第三十九条，因此，用人单位无需给予劳动者经济补偿。

 

    劳动者认为，用人单位在作出处分决定时，应当参与审议的部门不齐全，没有给予劳动者申辩机会且没有履行向上级管理单位报批的程序，因此，用人单位在作出处分决定时不符合程序。

    用人单位律师在庭审举证阶段，按照用人单位规章制度的规定，详细举示了用人单位在作出开除决定时已经严格按照制度的规定履行相应程序的证据，证明用人单位在作出开除决定时，已经严格履行了相应程序。关于劳动者提出的没有给予其申辩机会的问题：一是无论是《劳动法》还是《劳动合同法》，均没有规定劳动者享有申辩的权利；二是用人单位律师向法庭提交的证据证明，无论是作出处分决定前、还是作出处分决定后，用人单位都已经充分给予了劳动者申辩的机会。同时，用人单位在解除与劳动者订立的劳动合同前，亦已经按照《劳动合同法》第四十三条的规定征求了本单位工会的意见。因此，劳动者主张的程序违法不能成立。

 

    劳动合同是劳动者与用人单位确立劳动关系，明确双方权利和义务的协议。如果用人单位与劳动者签订的劳动合同内容模糊，不仅用人单位难以约束劳动者的行为，劳动者的合法权益亦无法得到保障。因此，劳动合同的内容应在不违背《劳动合同法》等相关法律法规的情况下，尽可能地明确用人单位与劳动者的权利义务。比如，在劳动合同中明确哪些行为属于严重违反公司规章制度的行为，以及劳动者出现严重违反公司规章制度的行为时，用人单位可以给予劳动者何种处罚。

    一是劳动用工规章制度的内容和制定程序必须合法。劳动用工规章制度的内容不仅应当符合国家法律、行政法规及政策规定，还应当公平合理、符合社会道德。劳动用工规章制度的制定程序必须符合法律规定，用人单位制定规章时应依法履行民主决策程序和公示、告知程序。二是劳动用工规章制度的内容应具体明确，具备可操作性。用人单位在制定规章制度时，应尽量避免采取引用的方式。如果确需在规章制度中引用相关法律法规或者政策规定的，用人单位应当直接将相关法律法规或者政策的规定写在规章制度中。三是劳动用工规章制度在规定对劳动者的处罚措施时，应区分劳动者的违纪原因、危害后果、主观过错以及是否初犯、偶犯等情况，制定详细的罚则，以达到教育劳动者的目的。

 

    《劳动合同法》第五十条规定，“用人单位应当在解除或者终止劳动合同时出具解除或者终止劳动合同的证明，并在十五日内为劳动者办理档案和社会保险关系转移手续。”据此，用人单位解除劳动合同的，应当及时向劳动者出具解除劳动合同的证明并办理档案及社保关系转移等手续。

    《最高人民法院关于审理劳动争议案件适用法律问题的解释（一）》（法释〔2020〕26号）第四十四条规定，“因用人单位作出的开除、除名、辞退、解除劳动合同、减少劳动报酬、计算劳动者工作年限等决定而发生的劳动争议，用人单位负举证责任。”由此可见，在因用人单位作出开除决定或解除劳动合同而引发的劳动争议中，举证责任在用人单位。如果用人单位没有注意收集、保存开除或解除劳动者劳动合同合法的相关证据，那么，在劳动者申请劳动仲裁以及后续的诉讼中，裁判机关可能以用人单位无法举证证明其开除劳动者或解除劳动者劳动合同合法为由认为用人单位违法开除劳动者或违法解除劳动合同，并据此裁判用人单位向劳动者支付赔偿金。

    用人单位的诉讼代理人为汪卫平、刘元杰律师。

 

Case | The Employee Was Fired for Taking Drugs and Sued the Employing Entity, the Employing Entity’s Legal Rights Was Upheld by Court

 

 

1. Basic facts of the case
    The employee has been working in the employing entity since the establishment of labor relationship with the employing entity in 2008. During this period, the employing entity has repeatedly carried out warning and education activities to prevent employees from breaking the law and committing crimes, and has been warning and educating employees not to take drugs for a long time. In August 2021, the employee was seized by the public security organ for taking drugs. The public security organ issued the Written Decision on Administrative Penalty, which found that the employee had taken drugs for many times since 2012, and made a decision to punish the employee with administrative detention. After the employing entity was informed of the aforementioned facts, it immediately initiated disciplinary procedures against the employee, decided to dismiss the employee and dissolve his labor contract in September 2021, and notified the employee.

   The employee believed that the employing entity could not impose administrative discipline on him according to the Law on Administrative Discipline for Public Officials and refused to accept the disciplinary decision, and appealed to the labor and personnel dispute arbitration commission for labor dispute arbitration, requested to revoke the employing entity’s disciplinary decision and reinstate the labour relation. After examination, the labor and personnel dispute arbitration commission made a ruling to revoke the employing entity’s disciplinary decision. The employing entity was not satisfied with the arbitration award and filed a lawsuit in the People’s Court, and requested the court to identify the legitimacy of the employing entity’s dismissal and dissolution of the labor contract.

    The court of first instance ruled that the dismissal and dissolution of the labor contract made by the employing entity were legal and valid. The employee appealed against the first instance trial. The court of second instance rejected the appeal and upheld the original judgment after hearing.

 

 

    The main issues in this case are: a) Whether the employment rules and regulations formulated by the employing entity can be used as the basis for identifying the rights and obligations between the employing entity and the employee? b) Whether the employing entity can dismiss the employee and dissolve the labor contract with the employee? Whether the employing entity should give the employee economic compensation for dismissing and dissolving the labor contract with the employee？ c) Whether the employing entity has fulfilled the legal procedures when dismissing and dissolving the labor contract with the employee?

     Issue 1: Whether the employment rules and regulations formulated by the employing entity can be used as the basis for identifying the rights and obligations between the employing entity and the employee?

    The key to identify whether the employment rules and regulations formulated by the employing entity are legitimate, is whether the employment rules and regulations formulated by the employing entity comply with the provisions of Article 50 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court on the Application of Law to the Trial of Labor Dispute Cases (I) (No. 26 〔2020〕, SPC Interpretation). The Article 50 stipulates that “The rules and systems formulated by employing entity through democratic procedures in accordance with Article 4 of the Labor Contract Law, which also do not violate national laws, administrative regulations and policies, and have been disclosed to employee, can be used as the basis for determination of the rights and obligations of both parties.”

    The employee believed that the Law on Administrative Discipline for Public Officials does not stipulates that the employing entity can refer to the provisions, so the employing entity directly introduced the provisions of Law On Administrative Discipline for Public Officials into the employment rules and regulations, which violated the mandatory provisions of the law. Therefore, the employment rules and regulations formulated by the employing entity cannot be used as the basis for identifying the rights and obligations between the employing entity and the employee.

   The employing entity’s lawyers suggested that: a) The employment rules and regulations have been discussed in the employees’ representative assembly, and the opinions of the union and employees have been fully solicited and listened to, and voted by democratic procedures. b) When the employing entity formulated the employment rules and regulations, the provisions of the Law On Administrative Discipline for Public Officials were introduced into it, which is the absorption and internalization of the relevant laws and regulations by the employing entity’s rules and regulations. At the same time, none of the 68 articles of the Law On Administrative Discipline for Public Officials prohibits the employing entity from incorporating the violations of the law and its treatment measures into the employing entity’s rules and regulations, or prohibits the employing entity from dismissing a drug-addicted employee. In accordance with the principle of “everything which is not forbidden is allowed”, the Law On Administrative Discipline for Public Officials does not prohibit the employing entity from absorbing the violations of the law and its treatment measures into the employer’s rules and regulations, and nor prohibits the employing entity from dismissing a drug-addicted employee, so the employing entity’s incorporating some provisions of the Law On Administrative Discipline for Public Officials does not violate the mandatory provisions of the law. Although the employee claimed that the employing entity had violated the law by invoking the Law On Administrative Discipline for Public Officials to formulate employment regulations, he had not specified any article or paragraph of any law or regulation has been violated, and his claim had no legal basis. c) The employing entity had published the employment rules and regulations and informed and reminded the employee to read them, and the employee had read and studied the employment rules and regulations of the employing entity, and was aware of the effective date and related contents of the system. Therefore, the employment rules and regulations formulated by the employing entity comply with the provisions of Article 50 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court on the Application of Law to the Trial of Labor Dispute Cases (I) (No. 26 〔2020〕, SPC Interpretation), and the agreement on the rights and obligations of the employees in the employment rules and regulations is clear and specific, which should be used as the basis for handling this case. The view of the lawyers of the employing entity were approved by the court of the first and second trial.

 

    The employee argued that dismissal is an administrative discipline for violation of labor discipline and internal rules and regulations of the enterprise, which means that the premise of dismissal is violation of labor discipline or internal rules and regulations of the enterprise. In this case, the act of the employee being punished administratively due to taking drugs, which does not fall within the scope of the labor employment rules and regulations, nor is it the behavior that the labor contract should be dissolved according to the labor contract. At the same time, dismissal is a punishment made by the employing entity based on the employee’s violation of discipline and the employing entity’s rules and regulations, and no economic compensation is required for dismissal. However, dissolution of the labor contract is an act of early dissolution of the labor contract before the expiration of the labor contract based on the employing entity’s needs for attrition or the employee’s inability to perform the job or violation of the labor contract, and economic compensation is required to be paid to the employee upon dissolution.

    The employing entity’s lawyers proposed that, in this case, the employing entity could and should dismiss the employee and dissolve the labor contract with the employee. The reasons include: a) The employee still persisted in taking drugs several times despite the national anti-drug regulation and the employing entity’s continuous and long-term anti-drug publicity and education, which was extremely bad in nature and has extremely serious consequences, he should be fired and his labor contract should be dissolved. b) The Labor Contract Law stipulates that the employing entity can dissolve the labor contract if the employee seriously violates the rules and regulations of the employing entity. The Law On Administrative Discipline for Public Officials stipulates that taking or injecting drugs shall result in removal from office or dismissal. There is a clear legal basis for the employing entity to translate the violations and penalties stipulated in the Law On Administrative Discipline for Public Officials into the employing entity’s rules and regulations under the Labor Contract Law, and to dismiss the employee and dissolve his or her labor contract based on the rules and regulations. c) The employment rules and regulations formulated by the employing entity clearly stipulates that an employee who takes or injects drugs shall be removed from office and dismissed. If an employee is subject to dismissal, the employing entity shall dissolve the labor contract signed with him or her after fulfilling the corresponding procedures in accordance with the regulations. According to the aforementioned analysis, the employment rules and regulations formulated by the employing entity comply with the provisions of Article 50 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court on the Application of Law to the Trial of Labor Dispute Cases (I) (No. 26 〔2020〕,SPC Interpretation), therefore should be used as the basis for confirming the employing entity’s dismissal and dissolution of the labor contract. d) Anti-drug work is related to national security, the rise and fall of the nation, and the well-being of the people, and the vigorous implementation of anti-drug is the consistent advocacy and position of the Party and the government. Under such a background, if an employee who has been taking drugs for a long time is not dissolved from the labor contract and dismissed, this will seriously affect the normal labor management of the employing entity and will certainly run counter to the socialist core values. In addition, the dismissal of an employee by the employing entity belongs to the employing entity’s independent employment management, and the dismissal is a parallel and inclusive relationship with the dissolution of the labor contract, and the actual impact of the dismissal on the rights and interests of the employee is equivalent to the dissolution of the labor contract. The above views of the lawyers was approved by the court of first and second instance of the case.

As to whether the employee should be given economic compensation, the circumstances under which the employing entity should give economic compensation to the employee are stipulated in Article 46 of the Labor Contract Law. According to this article, if the employing entity dissolved the labor contract in accordance with Article 39 of the Labor Contract Law, the employing entity is not required to pay economic compensation to the employee. In this case, the employing entity dissolved the labor contract with the employee in accordance with Article 39 of the Labor Contract Law. Therefore, the employing entity is not required to pay economic compensation to the employee.

   Issue 3：Whether the employing entity has fulfilled the legal procedures when dismissing and dissolving the labor contract with the employee?

    The employee argued that the employing entity did not comply with the procedure when making the disciplinary decision because the departments that should be involved in the consideration were not complete, the employee was not given the opportunity to defend and the procedure of reporting to the higher management unit for approval was not fulfilled. Therefore, the employing entity does not comply with the procedure when making discipline.During the evidence stage of the trial, the lawyers of the employing entity presented detailed evidence that the employing entity had strictly complied with the corresponding procedures when making the decision to dismiss in accordance with the rules and regulations of the employing entity, proving that the employing entity had strictly complied with the corresponding procedures when making the decision to dismiss. Regarding the employee’s claim that he was not given an opportunity to defend himself: Firstly, neither the Labor Law nor the Labor Contract Law stipulates that employees have the right to defend themselves. Secondly, the evidence submitted to the court by the lawyers of the employing entity proved that the employing entity has given the employee an opportunity to defend himself both before and after the disciplinary decision was made. At the same time, the employing entity also consulted the labor union of the employing entity before dissolving the labor contract with the employee in accordance with Article 43 of the Labor Contract Law. Therefore, the employee’s claim of procedural violation cannot be established.

 

 

    The labor contract is an agreement between the employee and the employing entity that establishes the employment relationship and defines the rights and obligations of both parties. If the content of the labor contract signed between the employing entity and the employee is vague, not only is it difficult for the employing entity to bind the behavior of the employee, but also the legitimate rights and interests of the employee cannot be protected. Therefore, the content of the labor contract should clarify the rights and obligations of the employing entity and the employee as much as possible without violating the Labor Contract Law and other relevant laws and regulations. For example, it should be clear in the labor contract which behaviors are serious violations of the company’s rules and regulations and what kind of punishment the employing entity can give to the employee when the employee commits serious violations of the company’s rules and regulations.

 

     Firstly, the content and formulation procedure of employment rules and regulations must be legal. The content of employment rules and regulations should not only comply with national laws, administrative regulations and policies, but also be fair and reasonable and conform to social morality. The procedure of making employment rules and regulations must be in accordance with the law, and the employing entity should fulfill the democratic decision-making procedure and public announcement or notification procedure in accordance with the law. Secondly, the content of employment rules and regulations should be specific and clear with operability. When making rules and regulations, employing entity should try to avoid quotations as much as possible. If it is necessary to quote relevant laws and regulations or policies in the rules and regulations, the employing entity should directly write the relevant laws and regulations or policies in the rules and regulations. Thirdly, when stipulating the penalties for employees in the labor employment rules and regulations, the employing entity should differentiate the reasons for the violation, the harmful consequences, the subjective fault and whether it is a first or occasional offense, and make detailed penalties for the purpose of educating the employees.

 

    Article 50 of the Labor Contract Law stipulates that “The employing entity shall issue a document to prove the dissolution or termination of the labor contract and complete, within 15 days, the procedures for the transfer of the employee’s personal file and social security relationship.” Accordingly, if the employing entity dissolves the labor contract, it shall issue a certificate of dissolution of the labor contract to the employee timely and go through the procedures of transferring the files and social security relationship.

 

4. The employing entity should pay attention to the collection and preservation of evidence related to the dismissal or dissolution of the labor contract to avoid the legal consequences of failure to provide evidence.

    Article 44 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court on the Application of Law to the Trial of Labor Dispute Cases (I) (Interpretation No. 26〔2020〕) provides that “The employing entity shall bear the burden of proof for labor disputes arising from the decisions made by the employing entity to dismiss, expel, fire, dissolve the labor contract, reduce the labor remuneration, and calculate the working years of the workers.” Accordingly, it can be seen that in labor disputes arising from a decision to dismiss an employee or dissolve the labor congtract made by the employing entity, the burden of proof is on the employing entity. If the employing entity does not pay attention to collecting and preserving the evidence that the dismissal and dissolution of the labor contract is legal, the judicial organ may consider that the employing entity has illegally dismissed the employee or illegally dissolved the labor contract on the grounds that the employing entity cannot prove that the dismissal or dissolution of the labor contract is legal, and judge the employing entity to pay compensation to the employee accordingly in the labor arbitration and subsequent litigation.

    The litigation agents of the employing entity are lawyer Wang Weiping and lawyer Liu Yuanjie.

本期撰稿：刘元杰

本期译稿：解 佳、张 川

本期编辑：尤 喆