Related Articles
Position:Arbitrate committee thinks: Appeal person Lin Mou loses the property of the company in the job, it is to belong to working error, and be not is to violate discipline badly. Person be appealinged to loses property with appeal person, cause company pecuniary loss, it is to belong to violate age act badly for, the amerce that makes to appeal person is handled and deduct from inside the salary of appeal person directly, solid belong to qualitative not accurate and processing is overweight, the amerce processing that makes to appeal person also is not accorded with " byelaw of company worker rewards and punishment " in the regulation that punishs about economy. Accordingly, adjudication is accused the person returns the pay that appeal person is deducted.
The expert reviews analyse: Because error or behavior of other unpremeditated crime damage,laborer is like in the job (or lose) the property of unit of choose and employ persons, behoove according to the set price is compensated for. But wanting worker only is not intended attaint property, unit of choose and employ persons should not make amerce processing commonly. Although the appeal person Lin Mou of this case loses company property in the job, but its are not voluntary action, person be appealinged to fines decuple processing to what what its make, it is to belong to processing apparently overweight; And the practice that its deduct 1700 yuan of amerce from appeal person pay directly, also disobeyed " byelaw of company worker rewards and punishment " with labor department " salary pays provisional regulation " in the regulation about fine and recouping pecuniary loss, behoove gives correct.
