< p > 1, the second paragraph of article thirty-ninth of the labor contract law stipulates that the employer may rescind the labor contract if it seriously violates the rules and regulations of the employing unit.

The application of this paragraph should conform to the following three conditions: first, the contents of rules and regulations must conform to the provisions of laws and regulations, and be made public through democratic procedures.

Secondly, the behavior of laborers objectively exists, and is a serious violation of the rules and regulations of employers. What is "serious"? Generally speaking, the specific limits prescribed by the labor regulations and the internal rules and regulations of the employing units should be based on the limits specified in the labor laws and regulations.

Third, the handling of laborers by employers is handled in accordance with the procedures of the rules and regulations of the unit, and is consistent with the relevant laws and regulations.

In this case, the plaintiff applies this clause to terminate the labor contract with the defendant, which basically does not possess the above three conditions, and the defendant does not exist a serious violation of the rules and regulations of the employing units.

< /p >

< p > 2, < a href= "//m.pmae.cn/news/index_c.asp" > plaintiff < /a > in the course of litigation, a "handling regulations on quality problems of Huaihua Wuling city construction and installation company" was submitted, and it was explained that the defendant was mainly in violation of the provisions and accordingly relieved the same.

However, in the reply submitted by the plaintiff about Kuang Zheng's request for compensation for labor economy, it was pointed out that the defendant had violated the "three fixed plans" (the specific content has not yet been seen) and did not mention the provisions on the treatment of quality problems in the construction and installation company of Wuling City, Huaihua.

The plaintiff referred to the defendant in violation of his rules and regulations. This is what he said was "rules for the treatment of quality problems in the construction and installation company of Wuling City, Huaihua". It was the "three fixed plan" that violated the "system".

Why is it vague and unclear? These two rules and regulations, as the defendant Kuang Zheng, have never been seen and known during the work of the plaintiff's units. Moreover, the two rules and regulations have not been submitted by the plaintiff in the process of labor arbitration.

If, as the plaintiff said, the two rules and regulations existed objectively at the time of the quality problem, but why did not it be submitted in the process of labor arbitration? Is it just because of the omission in the process of proof? It is really doubtful whether the rule a href= "//m.pmae.cn/news/index_c.asp" > authenticity /a > is the objective existence and the conclusion should be obvious.

< /p >

The "construction contractor's post responsibility", "three fixed plans" and the "handling rules for quality problems in Huaihua Wuling city construction and installation company" are legal and effective. The fourth clause of the labor contract law second stipulates: when the employer makes, modifies or decides on the rules and regulations and major matters directly related to the vital interests of the workers, such as labor remuneration, working hours, rest and vacation, labor safety and health, insurance benefits, staff training, labor discipline and labor quota management, etc., it shall discuss the plans and opinions of the workers' Congress or all the staff members, and make an equal consultation with the trade union or staff representatives. The fourth provision provides that the employing units shall publicized the rules and regulations and major matters directly related to the interests of the laborers, or inform the laborers. < p > 3, step by step, assuming that the plaintiff said < a href= "//m.pmae.cn/news/index_c.asp" > rules and regulations < /a > is real.

According to this law, the three rules and regulations enumerated by the plaintiff do not have legal effect.

First, the three rules and regulations formulated by the plaintiff were not discussed by the workers' Congress or all the staff members, nor were they discussed with the staff representatives. Second, the above rules and regulations were neither publicized nor communicated to the workers.

The defendant never saw and knew the above rules and regulations during his work.

Therefore, the above rules and regulations are not in conformity with the requirements of the labor contract law, and do not have legal effect.

From a common sense, how can he abide by the rules and regulations that the defendants do not know? If he uses the rules and regulations that these defendants do not know, how can he deal with the defendant? Why? /p