為深入貫(guan)徹黨的二十屆三中(zhong)全會(hui)關于完善勞動(dong)關系協(xie)商協(xie)調機制(zhi)、加強(qiang)勞動(dong)者權益保(bao)障(zhang)(zhang)的重要部署，充(chong)分發揮勞動(dong)人事爭議仲裁的獨特優勢和(he)司法引領、推動(dong)、保(bao)障(zhang)(zhang)作用，有(you)效指導裁審實踐，近日，人力資源社會(hui)保(bao)障(zhang)(zhang)部、最高人民(min)法院聯合發布第四批勞動(dong)人事爭議典型案例。
近年來，兩(liang)部門(men)(men)密切(qie)協(xie)作(zuo)配合(he)，落實《關于加強(qiang)勞(lao)動(dong)(dong)人(ren)事爭議仲裁與訴訟銜接(jie)機制(zhi)建設的(de)(de)意(yi)見》（人(ren)社部發〔2017〕70號）提(ti)出的(de)(de)“開展類案(an)(an)分析，聯合(he)篩選(xuan)并發布典(dian)型(xing)案(an)(an)例(li)(li)”要(yao)求，圍繞超時(shi)加班、新就業形態等(deng)熱(re)點(dian)難點(dian)問題，已聯合(he)發布三批共31個(ge)典(dian)型(xing)案(an)(an)例(li)(li)。通過聯合(he)發布典(dian)型(xing)案(an)(an)例(li)(li)回應社會(hui)關切(qie)、規范法(fa)律適用(yong)、統一(yi)裁審標準(zhun)已成(cheng)為兩(liang)部門(men)(men)常態化工(gong)作(zuo)機制(zhi)。本批案(an)(an)例(li)(li)聚(ju)焦社會(hui)保(bao)險(xian)(xian)、競(jing)業限制(zhi)等(deng)問題，重點(dian)明確用(yong)人(ren)單(dan)位不(bu)(bu)能通過變(bian)相(xiang)調整工(gong)作(zuo)崗位降低(di)孕期(qi)女職工(gong)工(gong)資及福(fu)利待遇(yu)、用(yong)人(ren)單(dan)位未依(yi)法(fa)繳(jiao)納(na)養老保(bao)險(xian)(xian)費的(de)(de)應當(dang)補足撫(fu)恤金差額(e)、主體不(bu)(bu)適格的(de)(de)競(jing)業限制(zhi)協(xie)議不(bu)(bu)具有(you)(you)約(yue)束(shu)力等(deng)法(fa)律適用(yong)標準(zhun)，對提(ti)升勞(lao)動(dong)(dong)人(ren)事爭議案(an)(an)件(jian)處(chu)理質效、提(ti)高勞(lao)動(dong)(dong)者就業權益保(bao)障水平具有(you)(you)重要(yao)意(yi)義。
下一步(bu)，兩部(bu)門將積(ji)極(ji)加強勞動(dong)人事爭(zheng)議仲裁(cai)與訴訟(song)銜(xian)接(jie)機制(zhi)建設，繼續(xu)推(tui)動(dong)聯合(he)發布典(dian)型案例、制(zhi)定(ding)裁(cai)審(shen)(shen)銜(xian)接(jie)意(yi)見、開展裁(cai)審(shen)(shen)信(xin)息比對等工(gong)(gong)作(zuo)，進(jin)一步(bu)加大對各級(ji)裁(cai)審(shen)(shen)機構的(de)辦案指導(dao)力度，指導(dao)用人單位依法(fa)(fa)規范用工(gong)(gong)，引導(dao)勞動(dong)者合(he)法(fa)(fa)理性維(wei)權，妥善(shan)化解勞動(dong)領域矛盾(dun)糾(jiu)紛(fen)，更好實現勞動(dong)人事爭(zheng)議案件(jian)處理政(zheng)治效果、法(fa)(fa)律效果與社(she)會(hui)效果的(de)有(you)機統一，切(qie)實維(wei)護勞動(dong)關系和諧與社(she)會(hui)穩(wen)定(ding)。
為深入貫(guan)徹黨的(de)二十(shi)屆三中全會關于完(wan)善勞(lao)動(dong)關系(xi)協(xie)(xie)商協(xie)(xie)調機制、加(jia)強勞(lao)動(dong)者(zhe)權益保障(zhang)的(de)重要部(bu)署，充分發揮勞(lao)動(dong)人(ren)事(shi)爭議仲裁(cai)的(de)獨(du)特優勢和司法引(yin)領、推動(dong)、保障(zhang)作用(yong)，有(you)效指導裁(cai)審實(shi)踐，近日，人(ren)力(li)資(zi)源社會保障(zhang)部(bu)、最高人(ren)民(min)法院聯合發布(bu)第四批勞(lao)動(dong)人(ren)事(shi)爭議典(dian)型(xing)案例。
近年來(lai)，兩部門(men)密切(qie)協作(zuo)配合，落實《關(guan)于加強勞(lao)(lao)動人事爭議(yi)仲(zhong)裁與(yu)訴(su)訟銜接機制建設的(de)(de)意見》（人社部發〔2017〕70號）提出(chu)的(de)(de)“開展類案(an)分析，聯合篩(shai)選(xuan)并發布典(dian)(dian)型(xing)(xing)案(an)例”要(yao)求(qiu)，圍(wei)繞超時(shi)加班(ban)、新(xin)就業(ye)形態等(deng)熱點(dian)(dian)難(nan)點(dian)(dian)問題(ti)，已聯合發布三批共31個(ge)典(dian)(dian)型(xing)(xing)案(an)例。通過聯合發布典(dian)(dian)型(xing)(xing)案(an)例回應(ying)社會關(guan)切(qie)、規范法(fa)(fa)律(lv)(lv)適用(yong)(yong)、統一裁審(shen)標(biao)準(zhun)已成為(wei)兩部門(men)常態化工作(zuo)機制。本批案(an)例聚焦社會保(bao)險、競業(ye)限(xian)制等(deng)問題(ti)，重點(dian)(dian)明(ming)確用(yong)(yong)人單位不能(neng)通過變相調整工作(zuo)崗位降低孕期女(nv)職工工資及福利待(dai)遇(yu)、用(yong)(yong)人單位未(wei)依法(fa)(fa)繳納養老保(bao)險費的(de)(de)應(ying)當補(bu)足撫恤金差額、主體不適格(ge)的(de)(de)競業(ye)限(xian)制協議(yi)不具(ju)有約(yue)束力等(deng)法(fa)(fa)律(lv)(lv)適用(yong)(yong)標(biao)準(zhun)，對提升勞(lao)(lao)動人事爭議(yi)案(an)件處理質效、提高(gao)勞(lao)(lao)動者就業(ye)權益(yi)保(bao)障(zhang)水平具(ju)有重要(yao)意義(yi)。
 下(xia)一步，兩(liang)部門將積極加(jia)強勞(lao)(lao)(lao)動(dong)(dong)(dong)人(ren)事爭議仲裁與(yu)(yu)訴訟(song)銜接(jie)機制建設，繼續推動(dong)(dong)(dong)聯合發布典(dian)型案(an)例、制定裁審(shen)銜接(jie)意見(jian)、開展裁審(shen)信息比(bi)對等工(gong)作，進一步加(jia)大(da)對各級裁審(shen)機構的辦案(an)指(zhi)(zhi)導力度，指(zhi)(zhi)導用人(ren)單位依法(fa)規范用工(gong)，引導勞(lao)(lao)(lao)動(dong)(dong)(dong)者合法(fa)理性維(wei)權，妥善化解勞(lao)(lao)(lao)動(dong)(dong)(dong)領域(yu)矛(mao)盾(dun)糾紛(fen)，更(geng)好實現勞(lao)(lao)(lao)動(dong)(dong)(dong)人(ren)事爭議案(an)件處理政(zheng)治效果、法(fa)律效果與(yu)(yu)社(she)會效果的有機統一，切實維(wei)護(hu)勞(lao)(lao)(lao)動(dong)(dong)(dong)關系和諧(xie)與(yu)(yu)社(she)會穩(wen)定。
人社部函〔2025〕28號
人力資(zi)源社會保障(zhang)部最(zui)高(gao)人民法院關(guan)于聯合發布(bu)第四批(pi)勞動人事爭議典(dian)型案例(li)的通知
各省、自治區、直轄市人力資源社會(hui)保障廳(ting)（局(ju)）、高級人民法院(yuan)，解放軍(jun)軍(jun)事法院(yuan)，新疆生產(chan)建設兵團人力資源社會(hui)保障局(ju)、新疆維吾爾自治區高級人民法院(yuan)生產(chan)建設兵團分院(yuan)：
為深(shen)入貫徹黨的二十(shi)屆(jie)三(san)中全(quan)會關于(yu)完善(shan)勞動(dong)關系(xi)(xi)協商(shang)協調(diao)機制(zhi)、加(jia)強勞動(dong)者權(quan)益保障的重要部署，落實(shi)人(ren)(ren)(ren)力資(zi)源社(she)會保障部、最高人(ren)(ren)(ren)民法(fa)院《關于(yu)加(jia)強勞動(dong)人(ren)(ren)(ren)事(shi)爭(zheng)議(yi)仲裁(cai)與訴(su)訟銜接機制(zhi)建設的意(yi)見》（人(ren)(ren)(ren)社(she)部發〔2017〕70號）提出的“開(kai)展(zhan)類案(an)分析，聯合(he)篩選并發布典型(xing)案(an)例”等要求，明確社(she)會保險及競業(ye)限制(zhi)法(fa)律適用標準，進一步(bu)提高勞動(dong)人(ren)(ren)(ren)事(shi)爭(zheng)議(yi)案(an)件處理(li)質效，合(he)力維護勞動(dong)關系(xi)(xi)和諧與社(she)會穩(wen)定，現發布第(di)四批勞動(dong)人(ren)(ren)(ren)事(shi)爭(zheng)議(yi)典型(xing)案(an)例，請各(ge)地仲裁(cai)機構、人(ren)(ren)(ren)民法(fa)院在辦案(an)中予以參照(zhao)。
人力資(zi)源社會保障部 最(zui)高人民法(fa)院
2025年4月9日
勞(lao)動人(ren)事(shi)爭議典型案例（第四批）
目(mu)錄
案(an)例(li)1.工(gong)傷職工(gong)能否(fou)根據診斷證明書主張延長停工(gong)留薪期
案(an)例(li)2.用(yong)人單位(wei)能(neng)否因女職工懷(huai)孕(yun)調崗(gang)降薪
  案例(li)3.病亡職工(gong)的(de)遺屬能否以未依法(fa)繳納社會保險(xian)費(fei)為由要求用(yong)人單位補足撫恤(xu)金
案例4.勞動者自行承(cheng)擔(dan)用(yong)人單(dan)位(wei)應繳未繳的(de)社會(hui)保險費(fei)的(de)，用(yong)人單(dan)位(wei)應否承(cheng)擔(dan)賠償責任
案(an)例5.主體不適(shi)格，競業限制(zhi)條款是否有效
案例1.工(gong)傷職工(gong)能否根據診斷證明書主(zhu)張延長停(ting)工(gong)留薪期
基(ji)本(ben)案情
彭(peng)某(mou)(mou)(mou)系某(mou)(mou)(mou)城建(jian)(jian)公(gong)司(si)(si)職工(gong)(gong)(gong)，該公(gong)司(si)(si)為(wei)彭(peng)某(mou)(mou)(mou)繳納了(le)(le)工(gong)(gong)(gong)傷(shang)保(bao)險費。2021年(nian)(nian)(nian)10月(yue)，彭(peng)某(mou)(mou)(mou)在拆遷工(gong)(gong)(gong)作中受傷(shang)并住(zhu)院(yuan)(yuan)治療。后彭(peng)某(mou)(mou)(mou)被認(ren)定為(wei)工(gong)(gong)(gong)傷(shang)，停(ting)(ting)工(gong)(gong)(gong)留薪期(qi)為(wei)12個月(yue)，期(qi)間某(mou)(mou)(mou)城建(jian)(jian)公(gong)司(si)(si)按(an)照法律規定按(an)月(yue)向(xiang)其支付停(ting)(ting)工(gong)(gong)(gong)留薪期(qi)工(gong)(gong)(gong)資(zi)。2022年(nian)(nian)(nian)9月(yue)起，某(mou)(mou)(mou)城建(jian)(jian)公(gong)司(si)(si)多次通(tong)過書面(mian)、電話、微信等方式(shi)通(tong)知彭(peng)某(mou)(mou)(mou)，如需延(yan)長(chang)停(ting)(ting)工(gong)(gong)(gong)留薪期(qi)，應提供有關材料并經勞動(dong)能力鑒定委(wei)員(yuan)會(hui)現場(chang)鑒定后確認(ren)。但彭(peng)某(mou)(mou)(mou)一直(zhi)不予(yu)配合，僅提交了(le)(le)某(mou)(mou)(mou)醫院(yuan)(yuan)出具的“建(jian)(jian)議2022年(nian)(nian)(nian)11月(yue)至(zhi)2023年(nian)(nian)(nian)1月(yue)繼續病休”的診斷證(zheng)明書，且(qie)拒(ju)絕(jue)與某(mou)(mou)(mou)城建(jian)(jian)公(gong)司(si)(si)人(ren)事經理(li)溝通(tong)。2022年(nian)(nian)(nian)11月(yue)起，某(mou)(mou)(mou)城建(jian)(jian)公(gong)司(si)(si)以(yi)停(ting)(ting)工(gong)(gong)(gong)留薪滿期(qi)為(wei)由(you)開始向(xiang)彭(peng)某(mou)(mou)(mou)發(fa)放病假(jia)工(gong)(gong)(gong)資(zi)。2023年(nian)(nian)(nian)2月(yue)，彭(peng)某(mou)(mou)(mou)向(xiang)勞動(dong)人(ren)事爭議仲(zhong)裁(cai)委(wei)員(yuan)會(hui)（以(yi)下(xia)簡稱(cheng)仲(zhong)裁(cai)委(wei)員(yuan)會(hui)）申請仲(zhong)裁(cai)。
申請(qing)人(ren)請(qing)求
請求裁(cai)決某城(cheng)建公司按照停工留薪期工資標準支付(fu)2022年11月至(zhi)2023年1月期間(jian)的(de)工資差額(e)。
處理結果
仲裁(cai)委(wei)員會裁(cai)決(jue)：駁(bo)回彭某(mou)的仲裁(cai)請求。
案例分(fen)析
本案的爭議焦點(dian)是僅憑醫(yi)院診斷證明書，能否延長(chang)工傷職工停工留(liu)薪期。
《中(zhong)華(hua)人民(min)共(gong)和(he)(he)(he)國(guo)社會(hui)保(bao)險法(fa)》第(di)(di)三(san)十九條(tiao)(tiao)第(di)(di)一(yi)(yi)項規(gui)定(ding)(ding)(ding)：“因(yin)工(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)傷(shang)(shang)發生(sheng)(sheng)的(de)(de)下列費用，按(an)照國(guo)家規(gui)定(ding)(ding)(ding)由(you)用人單位支付:（一(yi)(yi)）治(zhi)療工(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)傷(shang)(shang)期間(jian)的(de)(de)工(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)資福利(li)”。《工(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)傷(shang)(shang)保(bao)險條(tiao)(tiao)例》（中(zhong)華(hua)人民(min)共(gong)和(he)(he)(he)國(guo)國(guo)務院令(ling)(ling)第(di)(di)375號(hao)）第(di)(di)三(san)十三(san)條(tiao)(tiao)規(gui)定(ding)(ding)(ding)：“職(zhi)(zhi)工(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)因(yin)工(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)作(zuo)遭受事故(gu)傷(shang)(shang)害或(huo)者(zhe)患職(zhi)(zhi)業病需要暫停(ting)工(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)作(zuo)接受工(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)傷(shang)(shang)醫療的(de)(de)，在停(ting)工(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)留薪(xin)期內，原工(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)資福利(li)待遇不(bu)變，由(you)所在單位按(an)月支付。停(ting)工(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)留薪(xin)期一(yi)(yi)般不(bu)超過12個月。傷(shang)(shang)情(qing)嚴重或(huo)者(zhe)情(qing)況特(te)殊，經設區的(de)(de)市級勞(lao)(lao)動(dong)能力鑒定(ding)(ding)(ding)委員(yuan)(yuan)會(hui)確認，可以適當(dang)延長，但延長不(bu)得(de)超過12個月”。《工(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)傷(shang)(shang)職(zhi)(zhi)工(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)勞(lao)(lao)動(dong)能力鑒定(ding)(ding)(ding)管理(li)辦法(fa)》（人力資源社會(hui)保(bao)障部、國(guo)家衛生(sheng)(sheng)和(he)(he)(he)計劃生(sheng)(sheng)育委員(yuan)(yuan)會(hui)令(ling)(ling)第(di)(di)21號(hao)）第(di)(di)十一(yi)(yi)條(tiao)(tiao)規(gui)定(ding)(ding)(ding)：“工(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)傷(shang)(shang)職(zhi)(zhi)工(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)應當(dang)按(an)照通知(zhi)的(de)(de)時(shi)間(jian)、地點參(can)加現場鑒定(ding)(ding)(ding)”。從(cong)上述規(gui)定(ding)(ding)(ding)可知(zhi)，停(ting)工(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)留薪(xin)期是《中(zhong)華(hua)人民(min)共(gong)和(he)(he)(he)國(guo)社會(hui)保(bao)險法(fa)》及《工(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)傷(shang)(shang)保(bao)險條(tiao)(tiao)例》規(gui)定(ding)(ding)(ding)的(de)(de)工(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)傷(shang)(shang)職(zhi)(zhi)工(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)暫時(shi)停(ting)止工(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)作(zuo)進行治(zhi)療并享(xiang)受相應工(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)傷(shang)(shang)保(bao)險待遇的(de)(de)期限，一(yi)(yi)般不(bu)超過12個月，職(zhi)(zhi)工(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)的(de)(de)傷(shang)(shang)情(qing)嚴重或(huo)者(zhe)情(qing)況特(te)殊需要更長保(bao)障時(shi)間(jian)的(de)(de)，經設區的(de)(de)市級勞(lao)(lao)動(dong)能力鑒定(ding)(ding)(ding)委員(yuan)(yuan)會(hui)確認，可以適當(dang)延長。這種制度設計既確保(bao)工(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)傷(shang)(shang)職(zhi)(zhi)工(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)在治(zhi)療期間(jian)得(de)到相應保(bao)障，也能夠(gou)避免工(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)傷(shang)(shang)職(zhi)(zhi)工(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)“小(xiao)傷(shang)(shang)大養”損害企業合法(fa)權益的(de)(de)情(qing)況。
本案中，因彭某(mou)不配合提交有關(guan)材料(liao)、進行現場(chang)鑒(jian)定，其(qi)未經當(dang)地市級勞動能力鑒(jian)定委員會確認延長停工(gong)留薪期，故其(qi)應當(dang)享受的(de)停工(gong)留薪期已(yi)于2022年10月期滿。因此，某(mou)城建(jian)公司不再按照停工(gong)留薪期工(gong)資(zi)標準(zhun)支(zhi)付其(qi)工(gong)資(zi)福利待遇的(de)做法并無不妥，仲(zhong)裁(cai)委員會對彭某(mou)的(de)仲(zhong)裁(cai)請(qing)求不予支(zhi)持。
典型意義
停(ting)工(gong)留薪(xin)期(qi)(qi)(qi)是(shi)保障工(gong)傷(shang)(shang)職(zhi)工(gong)權利(li)的重要(yao)(yao)制度(du)設(she)計(ji)，此期(qi)(qi)(qi)間的工(gong)資福(fu)利(li)待(dai)遇是(shi)工(gong)傷(shang)(shang)職(zhi)工(gong)受(shou)傷(shang)(shang)后賴以維持自(zi)身及家庭生(sheng)活的主(zhu)要(yao)(yao)資金來源(yuan)，能否依法(fa)享受(shou)對工(gong)傷(shang)(shang)職(zhi)工(gong)非常(chang)重要(yao)(yao)。需要(yao)(yao)強(qiang)調(diao)的是(shi)，停(ting)工(gong)留薪(xin)期(qi)(qi)(qi)與醫(yi)療(liao)(liao)機(ji)構(gou)認(ren)(ren)(ren)定(ding)的需脫產治療(liao)(liao)休息(xi)的期(qi)(qi)(qi)間并不(bu)是(shi)同(tong)一概念(nian)。后者由醫(yi)療(liao)(liao)機(ji)構(gou)根據(ju)工(gong)傷(shang)(shang)職(zhi)工(gong)的具體(ti)傷(shang)(shang)情判(pan)斷(duan)；前者具有(you)統一上限，能否延(yan)長應(ying)由法(fa)定(ding)專門機(ji)構(gou)按照法(fa)定(ding)程(cheng)序確認(ren)(ren)(ren)。工(gong)傷(shang)(shang)職(zhi)工(gong)傷(shang)(shang)情嚴重或者情況(kuang)特殊需要(yao)(yao)延(yan)長停(ting)工(gong)留薪(xin)期(qi)(qi)(qi)的，應(ying)當嚴格遵守(shou)《工(gong)傷(shang)(shang)保險條(tiao)例》第三十(shi)三條(tiao)規定(ding)的程(cheng)序向設(she)區的市級勞動能力鑒(jian)定(ding)委員會申請確認(ren)(ren)(ren)，而(er)不(bu)能僅(jin)憑(ping)醫(yi)療(liao)(liao)機(ji)構(gou)出(chu)具的診斷(duan)證(zheng)明書自(zi)行延(yan)長。同(tong)時(shi)，用人單位也應(ying)當建立合(he)理的請假審批制度(du)，明確相關管理流(liu)程(cheng)，確保雙方及時(shi)、有(you)效溝通。
案(an)例2.用人單位能否因女職工懷孕調(diao)崗降薪
基本案情
趙(zhao)某(mou)于(yu)2022年1月入職某(mou)科(ke)(ke)技公司(si)任工(gong)程師(shi)，雙(shuang)方訂立的勞動合(he)同約(yue)定(ding)：工(gong)作期間(jian)分為(wei)參與(yu)具體項(xiang)(xiang)(xiang)(xiang)目(mu)期間(jian)與(yu)等(deng)待項(xiang)(xiang)(xiang)(xiang)目(mu)期間(jian)，其(qi)中參與(yu)具體項(xiang)(xiang)(xiang)(xiang)目(mu)期間(jian)趙(zhao)某(mou)的月工(gong)資(zi)(zi)構(gou)成為(wei)基本(ben)工(gong)資(zi)(zi)3000元（高于(yu)當地(di)最(zui)低工(gong)資(zi)(zi)標準）加項(xiang)(xiang)(xiang)(xiang)目(mu)崗位(wei)津貼14000元；等(deng)待項(xiang)(xiang)(xiang)(xiang)目(mu)期間(jian)趙(zhao)某(mou)僅領取基本(ben)工(gong)資(zi)(zi)。2023年2月，趙(zhao)某(mou)告知(zhi)某(mou)科(ke)(ke)技公司(si)其(qi)懷(huai)孕(yun)事實(shi)，某(mou)科(ke)(ke)技公司(si)未與(yu)趙(zhao)某(mou)溝通協商(shang)便(bian)直接向(xiang)(xiang)趙(zhao)某(mou)所在(zai)(zai)的項(xiang)(xiang)(xiang)(xiang)目(mu)組宣布“趙(zhao)某(mou)退(tui)出所在(zai)(zai)項(xiang)(xiang)(xiang)(xiang)目(mu)組”，趙(zhao)某(mou)反對無果后(hou)(hou)未再上(shang)班。此后(hou)(hou)，某(mou)科(ke)(ke)技公司(si)主張趙(zhao)某(mou)未參與(yu)項(xiang)(xiang)(xiang)(xiang)目(mu)并按照3000元/月的標準支付趙(zhao)某(mou)孕(yun)期工(gong)資(zi)(zi)。趙(zhao)某(mou)向(xiang)(xiang)仲裁委員會申(shen)請仲裁。
申請人(ren)請求
請求(qiu)裁(cai)決某(mou)科技公司(si)按照17000元/月(yue)的標準(zhun)補齊(qi)孕期工資差(cha)額。
處理結果
仲裁(cai)委員會裁(cai)決(jue)：某(mou)科技(ji)公司按照17000元/月的標準補齊趙(zhao)某(mou)孕期工資差額。
案例分析
本案的(de)爭議焦點是用(yong)人(ren)單位能否因為女(nv)職(zhi)工懷(huai)孕調崗降薪(xin)。
《中華人民共和國(guo)婦女(nv)(nv)權益(yi)保障法》第(di)四十八條(tiao)第(di)一款(kuan)、《女(nv)(nv)職工(gong)(gong)勞(lao)動(dong)保護特別(bie)規(gui)定》（中華人民共和國(guo)國(guo)務(wu)院(yuan)令第(di)619號）第(di)五條(tiao)明確規(gui)定用(yong)(yong)人單位(wei)不得因懷孕(yun)(yun)降(jiang)低(di)女(nv)(nv)職工(gong)(gong)的工(gong)(gong)資和福(fu)利待遇。《女(nv)(nv)職工(gong)(gong)勞(lao)動(dong)保護特別(bie)規(gui)定》第(di)六條(tiao)規(gui)定：“女(nv)(nv)職工(gong)(gong)在孕(yun)(yun)期(qi)不能(neng)(neng)適(shi)(shi)應原(yuan)勞(lao)動(dong)的，用(yong)(yong)人單位(wei)應當根據醫療機(ji)構的證(zheng)明，予以(yi)減(jian)輕勞(lao)動(dong)量(liang)或(huo)者(zhe)安排其他(ta)能(neng)(neng)夠(gou)(gou)適(shi)(shi)應的勞(lao)動(dong)”，明確“減(jian)輕勞(lao)動(dong)量(liang)或(huo)者(zhe)安排其他(ta)能(neng)(neng)夠(gou)(gou)適(shi)(shi)應的勞(lao)動(dong)”的前提是(shi)“女(nv)(nv)職工(gong)(gong)在孕(yun)(yun)期(qi)不能(neng)(neng)適(shi)(shi)應原(yuan)勞(lao)動(dong)”。因此，如(ru)果(guo)孕(yun)(yun)期(qi)女(nv)(nv)職工(gong)(gong)能(neng)(neng)夠(gou)(gou)適(shi)(shi)應原(yuan)勞(lao)動(dong)的，用(yong)(yong)人單位(wei)應當尊重并保護女(nv)(nv)職工(gong)(gong)的勞(lao)動(dong)權利。
本案中，某(mou)(mou)(mou)(mou)科(ke)技(ji)公司(si)(si)要求趙(zhao)(zhao)某(mou)(mou)(mou)(mou)退出所在(zai)項目的(de)(de)行(xing)為(wei)(wei)，既不(bu)符合雙方勞動(dong)合同約定(ding)(ding)的(de)(de)等待項目期(qi)(qi)間的(de)(de)情形(xing)，也未征求趙(zhao)(zhao)某(mou)(mou)(mou)(mou)本人(ren)的(de)(de)同意，更未經醫療機構(gou)證明趙(zhao)(zhao)某(mou)(mou)(mou)(mou)存在(zai)“不(bu)能(neng)適應原(yuan)勞動(dong)”的(de)(de)情形(xing)，屬于違反《女(nv)職(zhi)工(gong)勞動(dong)保(bao)護(hu)特別(bie)規定(ding)(ding)》第(di)六條(tiao)規定(ding)(ding)，變相調整(zheng)孕期(qi)(qi)女(nv)職(zhi)工(gong)崗(gang)位的(de)(de)情形(xing)。該公司(si)(si)以趙(zhao)(zhao)某(mou)(mou)(mou)(mou)未參與(yu)項目為(wei)(wei)由(you)降低趙(zhao)(zhao)某(mou)(mou)(mou)(mou)孕期(qi)(qi)工(gong)資(zi)(zi)標準，違反了《中華(hua)人(ren)民共(gong)和國(guo)婦(fu)女(nv)權(quan)益保(bao)障法》第(di)四十八(ba)條(tiao)第(di)一(yi)款(kuan)、《女(nv)職(zhi)工(gong)勞動(dong)保(bao)護(hu)特別(bie)規定(ding)(ding)》第(di)五條(tiao)的(de)(de)規定(ding)(ding)，因此仲裁委員會依法裁決(jue)某(mou)(mou)(mou)(mou)科(ke)技(ji)公司(si)(si)按(an)照(zhao)趙(zhao)(zhao)某(mou)(mou)(mou)(mou)原(yuan)工(gong)資(zi)(zi)待遇17000元/月的(de)(de)標準補齊趙(zhao)(zhao)某(mou)(mou)(mou)(mou)的(de)(de)孕期(qi)(qi)工(gong)資(zi)(zi)差額。
典型意(yi)義(yi)
黨(dang)的(de)二十大(da)報告提(ti)出完(wan)善勞動(dong)者權(quan)(quan)益保(bao)障制度、保(bao)障婦女(nv)(nv)兒(er)童合法(fa)(fa)權(quan)(quan)益等要求，我國多部法(fa)(fa)律法(fa)(fa)規對(dui)保(bao)護(hu)女(nv)(nv)職(zhi)(zhi)工(gong)勞動(dong)權(quan)(quan)利(li)(li)與身心健康(kang)作出了(le)特別規定(ding)。實踐(jian)中，用人單(dan)位在(zai)開展日(ri)常(chang)用工(gong)管理時應(ying)注意依法(fa)(fa)保(bao)護(hu)女(nv)(nv)職(zhi)(zhi)工(gong)尤其是孕期、產期、哺乳期（以下簡稱(cheng)“三期”）女(nv)(nv)職(zhi)(zhi)工(gong)的(de)合法(fa)(fa)權(quan)(quan)益，不能通過變(bian)相調(diao)整工(gong)作崗位、提(ti)升工(gong)作強度等方式侵害(hai)“三期”女(nv)(nv)職(zhi)(zhi)工(gong)的(de)勞動(dong)權(quan)(quan)利(li)(li)，也不能違法(fa)(fa)降低“三期”女(nv)(nv)職(zhi)(zhi)工(gong)的(de)工(gong)資(zi)及(ji)福利(li)(li)待(dai)遇。同時，女(nv)(nv)職(zhi)(zhi)工(gong)也應(ying)科學評估自身身體(ti)狀況，正確看待(dai)不能適(shi)應(ying)原勞動(dong)等特殊情形，積極與用人單(dan)位溝(gou)通，合理維(wei)護(hu)自身合法(fa)(fa)權(quan)(quan)益。
案例3.病(bing)亡職工的遺屬能否以未依(yi)法(fa)繳納(na)社會保險費(fei)為(wei)由要求用人單位補足(zu)撫恤金
基本(ben)案情
2016年(nian)(nian)(nian)6月(yue)(yue)，劉某(mou)(mou)松(song)入職(zhi)某(mou)(mou)出(chu)(chu)租車公司(si)，雙方勞(lao)動合同約定劉某(mou)(mou)松(song)工作崗位(wei)為(wei)司(si)機，勞(lao)動合同期限自2016年(nian)(nian)(nian)6月(yue)(yue)2日(ri)(ri)至2022年(nian)(nian)(nian)3月(yue)(yue)31日(ri)(ri)。2021年(nian)(nian)(nian)8月(yue)(yue)20日(ri)(ri)，劉某(mou)(mou)松(song)因病死(si)亡(wang)。經查詢(xun)，劉某(mou)(mou)松(song)基本養老(lao)保(bao)險(xian)累計實(shi)際繳(jiao)(jiao)費年(nian)(nian)(nian)限為(wei)4年(nian)(nian)(nian)2個月(yue)(yue)，個人繳(jiao)(jiao)費金額合計13766.64元。2017年(nian)(nian)(nian)5月(yue)(yue)至2018年(nian)(nian)(nian)5月(yue)(yue)期間，某(mou)(mou)出(chu)(chu)租車公司(si)未按照《中(zhong)華(hua)人民共和國社會(hui)(hui)保(bao)險(xian)法(fa)》規定為(wei)劉某(mou)(mou)松(song)繳(jiao)(jiao)納社會(hui)(hui)保(bao)險(xian)費。因該期間社會(hui)(hui)保(bao)險(xian)斷(duan)繳(jiao)(jiao)導致劉某(mou)(mou)松(song)遺屬(shu)張(zhang)某(mou)(mou)欣、張(zhang)某(mou)(mou)穎、張(zhang)某(mou)(mou)萍無法(fa)領取的(de)撫恤金差額為(wei)36633.36元。張(zhang)某(mou)(mou)欣、張(zhang)某(mou)(mou)穎、張(zhang)某(mou)(mou)萍向仲(zhong)裁(cai)委(wei)員會(hui)(hui)申請仲(zhong)裁(cai)，請求：某(mou)(mou)出(chu)(chu)租車公司(si)支付非因工死(si)亡(wang)撫恤金差額36633.36元。后張(zhang)某(mou)(mou)欣、張(zhang)某(mou)(mou)穎、張(zhang)某(mou)(mou)萍不服仲(zhong)裁(cai)委(wei)員會(hui)(hui)裁(cai)決(jue)，向人民法(fa)院提(ti)起訴訟。
原告請求(qiu)
張(zhang)某(mou)欣、張(zhang)某(mou)穎、張(zhang)某(mou)萍起訴請(qing)求(qiu)某(mou)出租車公(gong)司支付非因工死亡撫(fu)恤(xu)金差額36633.36元。
處(chu)理結果
  人民法(fa)院判決：某出租車公司向張(zhang)某欣、張(zhang)某穎、張(zhang)某萍支付(fu)非(fei)因工死亡的撫恤(xu)金差額36633.36元。
案例(li)分析(xi)
《中華人民共(gong)和(he)國(guo)社(she)會(hui)(hui)保險法(fa)》第十七條規定“參加(jia)基本養老保險的(de)(de)個人，因(yin)病或(huo)者非因(yin)工死亡的(de)(de)，其(qi)遺(yi)屬(shu)可以領取喪葬(zang)補助金(jin)(jin)和(he)撫(fu)(fu)恤(xu)(xu)金(jin)(jin)”。當地規定，根據(ju)本人的(de)(de)繳(jiao)費(fei)(fei)年(nian)限確定撫(fu)(fu)恤(xu)(xu)金(jin)(jin)的(de)(de)發放月(yue)數，繳(jiao)費(fei)(fei)年(nian)限滿5年(nian)不(bu)滿10年(nian)的(de)(de)，發放月(yue)數為6個月(yue)；累計繳(jiao)費(fei)(fei)年(nian)限不(bu)滿5年(nian)的(de)(de)，其(qi)遺(yi)屬(shu)待遇(yu)標準不(bu)得超(chao)過(guo)其(qi)個人繳(jiao)費(fei)(fei)之和(he)。本案中，某出(chu)租車公(gong)司未(wei)依法(fa)為劉(liu)某松(song)繳(jiao)納2017年(nian)5月(yue)至2018年(nian)5月(yue)期間(jian)的(de)(de)社(she)會(hui)(hui)保險費(fei)(fei)，致使張(zhang)某欣、張(zhang)某穎(ying)、張(zhang)某萍(ping)無法(fa)按照(zhao)繳(jiao)費(fei)(fei)年(nian)限滿5年(nian)領取6個月(yue)的(de)(de)撫(fu)(fu)恤(xu)(xu)金(jin)(jin)，只(zhi)能領取劉(liu)某松(song)個人繳(jiao)費(fei)(fei)的(de)(de)13766.64元，因(yin)此，某出(chu)租車公(gong)司應支付撫(fu)(fu)恤(xu)(xu)金(jin)(jin)差額部(bu)分。
典型意義
國家(jia)建立社(she)會(hui)保(bao)險(xian)(xian)制(zhi)度，保(bao)障(zhang)公民在年老(lao)、疾病(bing)、工傷、失(shi)業、生育等情(qing)況下依法(fa)從國家(jia)和社(she)會(hui)獲得物質幫助的權利(li)。用人(ren)單(dan)(dan)位依法(fa)為勞動者(zhe)繳(jiao)納社(she)會(hui)保(bao)險(xian)(xian)費，是勞動者(zhe)享(xiang)受社(she)會(hui)保(bao)險(xian)(xian)待(dai)遇的前提(ti)條件(jian)之一。勞動者(zhe)因病(bing)或者(zhe)非因工死亡(wang)，因用人(ren)單(dan)(dan)位未依法(fa)繳(jiao)納社(she)會(hui)保(bao)險(xian)(xian)費導(dao)致勞動者(zhe)遺屬(shu)少領(ling)取撫恤金等待(dai)遇的，用人(ren)單(dan)(dan)位應依法(fa)賠償(chang)差額損失(shi)。
案例4.勞動(dong)者自行承擔用(yong)(yong)人單位(wei)應繳未繳的(de)社(she)會(hui)保(bao)險費(fei)的(de)，用(yong)(yong)人單位(wei)應否承擔賠(pei)償責任
基本案情
李某與某公(gong)(gong)司存在勞動(dong)關系。勞動(dong)關系存續期間內，某公(gong)(gong)司僅為李某繳(jiao)納了(le)工傷保險(xian)費(fei)，李某自行(xing)承(cheng)擔了(le)用(yong)人(ren)單(dan)位(wei)(wei)應(ying)繳(jiao)未繳(jiao)的(de)社會保險(xian)費(fei)用(yong)。李某向(xiang)(xiang)仲裁委員會申請(qing)仲裁，請(qing)求某公(gong)(gong)司支(zhi)付用(yong)人(ren)單(dan)位(wei)(wei)應(ying)負擔的(de)社會保險(xian)費(fei)。后李某不服(fu)仲裁裁決(jue)，向(xiang)(xiang)人(ren)民法院提起訴訟。
原告請求
李某起訴請求某公(gong)司賠(pei)償(chang)用人單位應負擔部分的(de)社會保(bao)險(xian)費(fei)損失。
處理結果
人(ren)民法院(yuan)判決：某公(gong)司支付李某社會保險(xian)費損失。
案例分析
用人(ren)單位(wei)應(ying)當按照(zhao)(zhao)《中(zhong)華人(ren)民共和國社(she)會保險法》相關(guan)規定(ding)為勞(lao)動(dong)(dong)(dong)者(zhe)繳納社(she)會保險費(fei)。用人(ren)單位(wei)未(wei)按照(zhao)(zhao)國家規定(ding)為勞(lao)動(dong)(dong)(dong)者(zhe)繳納社(she)會保險費(fei)，勞(lao)動(dong)(dong)(dong)者(zhe)自(zi)行代用人(ren)單位(wei)承擔部分系(xi)(xi)勞(lao)動(dong)(dong)(dong)者(zhe)的(de)損(sun)失，可向用人(ren)單位(wei)主張損(sun)失賠償。本(ben)案中(zhong)，某(mou)公司應(ying)賠償李某(mou)勞(lao)動(dong)(dong)(dong)關(guan)系(xi)(xi)存續期(qi)間用人(ren)單位(wei)應(ying)繳未(wei)繳的(de)社(she)會保險費(fei)損(sun)失。
典型意義
社會(hui)(hui)(hui)保(bao)(bao)(bao)(bao)險(xian)費(fei)(fei)是(shi)社會(hui)(hui)(hui)保(bao)(bao)(bao)(bao)險(xian)基金的(de)主要(yao)來源(yuan)，用(yong)人(ren)單(dan)位能(neng)否按時足(zu)(zu)額(e)繳(jiao)納社會(hui)(hui)(hui)保(bao)(bao)(bao)(bao)險(xian)費(fei)(fei)，關(guan)系(xi)到社會(hui)(hui)(hui)保(bao)(bao)(bao)(bao)險(xian)基金的(de)安全和(he)有效運行，關(guan)系(xi)到勞動(dong)者(zhe)的(de)勞動(dong)權益保(bao)(bao)(bao)(bao)障。《中華人(ren)民(min)共和(he)國社會(hui)(hui)(hui)保(bao)(bao)(bao)(bao)險(xian)法(fa)》第(di)六十(shi)條第(di)一款規定(ding)：“用(yong)人(ren)單(dan)位應(ying)(ying)當(dang)自行申報、按時足(zu)(zu)額(e)繳(jiao)納社會(hui)(hui)(hui)保(bao)(bao)(bao)(bao)險(xian)費(fei)(fei)，非因(yin)不(bu)(bu)可抗力等法(fa)定(ding)事由不(bu)(bu)得緩繳(jiao)、減免(mian)。職工應(ying)(ying)當(dang)繳(jiao)納的(de)社會(hui)(hui)(hui)保(bao)(bao)(bao)(bao)險(xian)費(fei)(fei)由用(yong)人(ren)單(dan)位代扣代繳(jiao)，用(yong)人(ren)單(dan)位應(ying)(ying)當(dang)按月將(jiang)繳(jiao)納社會(hui)(hui)(hui)保(bao)(bao)(bao)(bao)險(xian)費(fei)(fei)的(de)明細情況(kuang)告知本人(ren)”。用(yong)人(ren)單(dan)位不(bu)(bu)依法(fa)為勞動(dong)者(zhe)繳(jiao)納社會(hui)(hui)(hui)保(bao)(bao)(bao)(bao)險(xian)費(fei)(fei)屬于違法(fa)行為，應(ying)(ying)當(dang)承擔相應(ying)(ying)的(de)法(fa)律責任。
案例(li)5.主體不(bu)適格，競業限制條款是否有效
基(ji)本案情(qing)
某(mou)保(bao)(bao)(bao)(bao)安公(gong)(gong)司(si)(si)主營業(ye)務(wu)是給(gei)商(shang)(shang)業(ye)樓宇、居民小區提供安全(quan)保(bao)(bao)(bao)(bao)衛等服務(wu)。2019年3月(yue)(yue)(yue)，某(mou)保(bao)(bao)(bao)(bao)安公(gong)(gong)司(si)(si)招聘李某(mou)擔任保(bao)(bao)(bao)(bao)安，雙方(fang)訂(ding)立期限(xian)為(wei)(wei)2年的(de)勞動(dong)(dong)合(he)(he)同，工資(zi)為(wei)(wei)3500元/月(yue)(yue)(yue)。勞動(dong)(dong)合(he)(he)同約(yue)定保(bao)(bao)(bao)(bao)安的(de)主要職(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)責(ze)為(wei)(wei)每日到某(mou)商(shang)(shang)業(ye)樓宇街區開展日常巡(xun)邏安保(bao)(bao)(bao)(bao)工作(zuo)(zuo)，同時內附競業(ye)限(xian)制條款，約(yue)定“職(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)工與某(mou)保(bao)(bao)(bao)(bao)安公(gong)(gong)司(si)(si)解(jie)除或終(zhong)止勞動(dong)(dong)合(he)(he)同后1年內不(bu)得到與該公(gong)(gong)司(si)(si)有競爭關系的(de)單位就職(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)，職(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)工離職(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)后某(mou)保(bao)(bao)(bao)(bao)安公(gong)(gong)司(si)(si)按月(yue)(yue)(yue)支付當(dang)(dang)地最(zui)低(di)月(yue)(yue)(yue)工資(zi)標準的(de)30%作(zuo)(zuo)為(wei)(wei)競業(ye)限(xian)制經濟補償(chang)。職(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)工若不(bu)履(lv)行(xing)上(shang)述義(yi)務(wu)，應當(dang)(dang)承擔違(wei)約(yue)賠償(chang)責(ze)任，違(wei)約(yue)金(jin)為(wei)(wei)20萬元”。2021年3月(yue)(yue)(yue)，雙方(fang)勞動(dong)(dong)合(he)(he)同到期終(zhong)止，李某(mou)未續訂(ding)勞動(dong)(dong)合(he)(he)同并入職(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)另一(yi)家保(bao)(bao)(bao)(bao)安公(gong)(gong)司(si)(si)擔任保(bao)(bao)(bao)(bao)安。某(mou)保(bao)(bao)(bao)(bao)安公(gong)(gong)司(si)(si)認為(wei)(wei)李某(mou)去其他保(bao)(bao)(bao)(bao)安公(gong)(gong)司(si)(si)擔任保(bao)(bao)(bao)(bao)安違(wei)反競業(ye)限(xian)制約(yue)定；李某(mou)認為(wei)(wei)自己作(zuo)(zuo)為(wei)(wei)保(bao)(bao)(bao)(bao)安，不(bu)了(le)解(jie)也不(bu)掌握公(gong)(gong)司(si)(si)的(de)商(shang)(shang)業(ye)秘(mi)密，自己不(bu)是履(lv)行(xing)競業(ye)限(xian)制義(yi)務(wu)的(de)適格主體。某(mou)保(bao)(bao)(bao)(bao)安公(gong)(gong)司(si)(si)向仲裁(cai)委員會申請仲裁(cai)。
申(shen)請人(ren)請求(qiu)
請求裁決李某支付競(jing)業限制違約金(jin)。
處(chu)理(li)結果
 仲裁委(wei)員會裁決(jue)：駁回某(mou)保(bao)安公司的仲裁請求。
案(an)例分(fen)析
本案的(de)(de)爭(zheng)議焦點是李某是否為履行競業(ye)限制義務的(de)(de)適格主體。
《中(zhong)(zhong)華(hua)人(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)民共(gong)和國勞(lao)動(dong)(dong)(dong)合同法》第二十三條(tiao)第一(yi)款(kuan)規(gui)(gui)定(ding)(ding)(ding)(ding)(ding)：“用(yong)(yong)人(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)單(dan)(dan)(dan)位(wei)(wei)(wei)與勞(lao)動(dong)(dong)(dong)者(zhe)可以(yi)(yi)在(zai)勞(lao)動(dong)(dong)(dong)合同中(zhong)(zhong)約(yue)定(ding)(ding)(ding)(ding)(ding)保(bao)守(shou)用(yong)(yong)人(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)單(dan)(dan)(dan)位(wei)(wei)(wei)的(de)(de)(de)商(shang)業(ye)秘密(mi)(mi)和與知識產權(quan)相關的(de)(de)(de)保(bao)密(mi)(mi)事項”，第二款(kuan)規(gui)(gui)定(ding)(ding)(ding)(ding)(ding)：“對負有(you)保(bao)密(mi)(mi)義務(wu)的(de)(de)(de)勞(lao)動(dong)(dong)(dong)者(zhe)，用(yong)(yong)人(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)單(dan)(dan)(dan)位(wei)(wei)(wei)可以(yi)(yi)在(zai)勞(lao)動(dong)(dong)(dong)合同或(huo)者(zhe)保(bao)密(mi)(mi)協議中(zhong)(zhong)與勞(lao)動(dong)(dong)(dong)者(zhe)約(yue)定(ding)(ding)(ding)(ding)(ding)競(jing)業(ye)限(xian)(xian)(xian)制條(tiao)款(kuan)，并約(yue)定(ding)(ding)(ding)(ding)(ding)在(zai)解除(chu)或(huo)者(zhe)終止勞(lao)動(dong)(dong)(dong)合同后(hou)，在(zai)競(jing)業(ye)限(xian)(xian)(xian)制期限(xian)(xian)(xian)內按月給予勞(lao)動(dong)(dong)(dong)者(zhe)經濟補(bu)償。勞(lao)動(dong)(dong)(dong)者(zhe)違反競(jing)業(ye)限(xian)(xian)(xian)制約(yue)定(ding)(ding)(ding)(ding)(ding)的(de)(de)(de)，應當按照(zhao)約(yue)定(ding)(ding)(ding)(ding)(ding)向用(yong)(yong)人(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)單(dan)(dan)(dan)位(wei)(wei)(wei)支付違約(yue)金”，第二十四條(tiao)第一(yi)款(kuan)規(gui)(gui)定(ding)(ding)(ding)(ding)(ding)：“競(jing)業(ye)限(xian)(xian)(xian)制的(de)(de)(de)人(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)員(yuan)限(xian)(xian)(xian)于用(yong)(yong)人(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)單(dan)(dan)(dan)位(wei)(wei)(wei)的(de)(de)(de)高(gao)級管(guan)(guan)理人(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)員(yuan)、高(gao)級技術(shu)人(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)員(yuan)和其他(ta)負有(you)保(bao)密(mi)(mi)義務(wu)的(de)(de)(de)人(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)員(yuan)”。前兩(liang)條(tiao)款(kuan)正向規(gui)(gui)定(ding)(ding)(ding)(ding)(ding)用(yong)(yong)人(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)單(dan)(dan)(dan)位(wei)(wei)(wei)有(you)權(quan)利與“負有(you)保(bao)密(mi)(mi)義務(wu)的(de)(de)(de)勞(lao)動(dong)(dong)(dong)者(zhe)”約(yue)定(ding)(ding)(ding)(ding)(ding)離職(zhi)(zhi)后(hou)競(jing)業(ye)限(xian)(xian)(xian)制條(tiao)款(kuan)，后(hou)一(yi)條(tiao)款(kuan)反向限(xian)(xian)(xian)定(ding)(ding)(ding)(ding)(ding)競(jing)業(ye)限(xian)(xian)(xian)制的(de)(de)(de)人(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)員(yuan)范(fan)圍(wei)僅(jin)限(xian)(xian)(xian)于“高(gao)級管(guan)(guan)理人(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)員(yuan)、高(gao)級技術(shu)人(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)員(yuan)和其他(ta)負有(you)保(bao)密(mi)(mi)義務(wu)的(de)(de)(de)人(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)員(yuan)”。因此，用(yong)(yong)人(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)單(dan)(dan)(dan)位(wei)(wei)(wei)與“高(gao)級管(guan)(guan)理人(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)員(yuan)、高(gao)級技術(shu)人(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)員(yuan)”以(yi)(yi)外的(de)(de)(de)其他(ta)勞(lao)動(dong)(dong)(dong)者(zhe)約(yue)定(ding)(ding)(ding)(ding)(ding)競(jing)業(ye)限(xian)(xian)(xian)制條(tiao)款(kuan)，應當以(yi)(yi)該勞(lao)動(dong)(dong)(dong)者(zhe)負有(you)保(bao)密(mi)(mi)義務(wu)為前提，即勞(lao)動(dong)(dong)(dong)者(zhe)在(zai)用(yong)(yong)人(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)單(dan)(dan)(dan)位(wei)(wei)(wei)的(de)(de)(de)職(zhi)(zhi)務(wu)或(huo)崗位(wei)(wei)(wei)足以(yi)(yi)使他(ta)們(men)知悉(xi)用(yong)(yong)人(ren)(ren)(ren)(ren)單(dan)(dan)(dan)位(wei)(wei)(wei)的(de)(de)(de)商(shang)業(ye)秘密(mi)(mi)和與知識產權(quan)相關的(de)(de)(de)保(bao)密(mi)(mi)事項。
本案中(zhong)，李某(mou)的(de)主要(yao)職責為每日(ri)到商業(ye)(ye)(ye)樓(lou)宇街(jie)區開展日(ri)常巡邏(luo)安(an)保(bao)(bao)工(gong)作，其(qi)所在的(de)保(bao)(bao)安(an)崗(gang)位明顯難以知(zhi)悉某(mou)保(bao)(bao)安(an)公(gong)(gong)司(si)的(de)商業(ye)(ye)(ye)秘(mi)密(mi)(mi)(mi)和與知(zhi)識產權相關的(de)保(bao)(bao)密(mi)(mi)(mi)事項(xiang)，某(mou)保(bao)(bao)安(an)公(gong)(gong)司(si)亦無(wu)證據證明李某(mou)具(ju)有接觸公(gong)(gong)司(si)商業(ye)(ye)(ye)秘(mi)密(mi)(mi)(mi)等保(bao)(bao)密(mi)(mi)(mi)事項(xiang)的(de)可(ke)能，因此(ci)李某(mou)不是競(jing)業(ye)(ye)(ye)限制(zhi)義(yi)務的(de)適格主體。某(mou)保(bao)(bao)安(an)公(gong)(gong)司(si)與李某(mou)約定競(jing)業(ye)(ye)(ye)限制(zhi)條款(kuan)，不符合《中(zhong)華人民共和國(guo)勞動合同法》第(di)二十三條、第(di)二十四(si)條關于競(jing)業(ye)(ye)(ye)限制(zhi)義(yi)務適格主體的(de)規定。因此(ci)，競(jing)業(ye)(ye)(ye)限制(zhi)條款(kuan)對雙(shuang)方(fang)不具(ju)有約束力，對某(mou)保(bao)(bao)安(an)公(gong)(gong)司(si)要(yao)求(qiu)李某(mou)支(zhi)付競(jing)業(ye)(ye)(ye)限制(zhi)違約金的(de)請求(qiu)，仲(zhong)裁委(wei)員會不予支(zhi)持。
典型意義
競(jing)業(ye)(ye)(ye)(ye)(ye)(ye)限(xian)(xian)(xian)(xian)(xian)制(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)是(shi)在勞(lao)(lao)動立(li)法(fa)中保護(hu)(hu)用(yong)人(ren)(ren)單位商業(ye)(ye)(ye)(ye)(ye)(ye)秘密(mi)(mi)的(de)一項(xiang)制(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)度(du)安排，本意是(shi)通(tong)過適(shi)度(du)限(xian)(xian)(xian)(xian)(xian)制(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)勞(lao)(lao)動者(zhe)(zhe)自由擇業(ye)(ye)(ye)(ye)(ye)(ye)權(quan)以預防保護(hu)(hu)用(yong)人(ren)(ren)單位的(de)商業(ye)(ye)(ye)(ye)(ye)(ye)秘密(mi)(mi)，進(jin)而維(wei)護(hu)(hu)市(shi)場主(zhu)體的(de)公平競(jing)爭(zheng)(zheng)環(huan)境。但當前一些行(xing)業(ye)(ye)(ye)(ye)(ye)(ye)、企業(ye)(ye)(ye)(ye)(ye)(ye)出(chu)現了(le)(le)用(yong)人(ren)(ren)單位濫(lan)用(yong)競(jing)業(ye)(ye)(ye)(ye)(ye)(ye)限(xian)(xian)(xian)(xian)(xian)制(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)條款限(xian)(xian)(xian)(xian)(xian)制(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)勞(lao)(lao)動者(zhe)(zhe)就業(ye)(ye)(ye)(ye)(ye)(ye)權(quan)利(li)的(de)情況，侵害了(le)(le)勞(lao)(lao)動者(zhe)(zhe)合(he)法(fa)權(quan)益(yi)，影響了(le)(le)人(ren)(ren)力資(zi)源(yuan)合(he)理(li)流(liu)動，損(sun)害了(le)(le)正常(chang)的(de)營商環(huan)境。各級裁審機構在處(chu)(chu)理(li)競(jing)業(ye)(ye)(ye)(ye)(ye)(ye)限(xian)(xian)(xian)(xian)(xian)制(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)爭(zheng)(zheng)議時應當堅持(chi)統籌處(chu)(chu)理(li)好促進(jin)企業(ye)(ye)(ye)(ye)(ye)(ye)發展和維(wei)護(hu)(hu)職工(gong)權(quan)益(yi)關系的(de)原則，對競(jing)業(ye)(ye)(ye)(ye)(ye)(ye)限(xian)(xian)(xian)(xian)(xian)制(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)條款進(jin)行(xing)實質性審查(cha)，既要保護(hu)(hu)用(yong)人(ren)(ren)單位的(de)商業(ye)(ye)(ye)(ye)(ye)(ye)秘密(mi)(mi)等合(he)法(fa)權(quan)益(yi)，又要防止(zhi)因不適(shi)當擴大競(jing)業(ye)(ye)(ye)(ye)(ye)(ye)限(xian)(xian)(xian)(xian)(xian)制(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)范圍而妨礙勞(lao)(lao)動者(zhe)(zhe)的(de)擇業(ye)(ye)(ye)(ye)(ye)(ye)自由；既要注重平衡市(shi)場主(zhu)體的(de)利(li)益(yi)關系，又要維(wei)護(hu)(hu)公平競(jing)爭(zheng)(zheng)的(de)市(shi)場經濟秩序，最大限(xian)(xian)(xian)(xian)(xian)度(du)地(di)實現競(jing)業(ye)(ye)(ye)(ye)(ye)(ye)限(xian)(xian)(xian)(xian)(xian)制(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)制(zhi)(zhi)(zhi)度(du)的(de)設立(li)初衷。
