How are the rules and regulations of the Academy of Sciences written, and who has a case?

The effective implementation of the rules and regulations of the enterprise is an important prerequisite for determining the success of the enterprise. First of all, the formulation of rules and regulations should be formulated through consultation between the company and employees (there are corresponding laws and regulations in this regard), which actually constitutes a part of the contract between employees and the company, and the violation of the articles of association must be dealt with accordingly, but since the rules and regulations are formulated by people, of course, there will be omissions in special circumstances, so the company must also have corresponding corrective measures or be set up in special circumstances to determine the right holder, but ultimately to reflect in the regulations. The reason for the disagreement when the exception occurs is that there are deficiencies in the system, so after the exception is created, the corresponding rules and regulations must be improved after the mediation is completed. Therefore, Sun Jiaming's point of view is correct when the problem occurs, but it must be analyzed and improved in the first place, Zhou Yunlong's point of view is to focus on the mediation of the actual situation, but it is an abnormal phenomenon in itself to occur many times, and it should be a special case that is not reflected in the management system after the coordination, which leads to a misunderstanding of employees and hinders the smooth implementation of rules and regulations.

So, personal opinion:

The company should set the relevant judgment responsibility and set the level, and the final judgment should be determined by the general manager. Because the case does not mention what the position of the two is, it is difficult to elaborate. (Basically, the finance and accounting department is responsible for accounting, and the staff rules are determined by the personnel department).

Now some people think that the so-called management is a PDCA process, so in the case D is obviously insufficient, A is insufficient. The cycle is broken!

The arguments of this case can be made in relation to the following:

1.Rationalization of the system.

2.The importance of leadership in institutionalization.

3.Utilization of the system - the factual application of the law of reason.

4.There are laws to follow, continuous improvement.

Different arguments can be presented to demonstrate different evidence. In general, in the course of career development, it is important to know whether you are "doing the right thing" or "doing the right thing" – depending on the stage and purpose of the company.

Quote: wiseman1003 |Level 8.

The arguments of this case can be made in relation to the following:

1.Rationalization of the system.

2.The importance of leadership in institutionalization.

3.Utilization of the system - the factual application of the law of reason.

4.There are laws to follow, continuous improvement.

Different arguments can be presented to demonstrate different evidence. In general, in the course of career development, it is important to know whether you are "doing the right thing" or "doing the right thing" – depending on the stage and purpose of the company.

The rules and regulations are inherently inviolable, and if they are special circumstances as Zhou Yunlong said, they should also be judged by the top of the company (general manager, chairman).

It's not up to Zhou Yunlong to have the final say.

Use management theories and management thinking methods to analyze and judge actual management problems = > these are not as good as what the boss said.

The management system should follow the "original stove", whoever dares to touch it, who will be hot.

The premise of the system compliance depends on the reasonableness, legality and reasonableness of the system, if a system is formulated, there are many loopholes, very unscientific and imperfect, such a system will indeed be challenged by many people, so if the system is rigid, unconditional, fair, such a premise to support, the following may involve the implementation of the issue.

Bad system can make good people and bad people, do not abide by, good system whether you are a good person or a bad person, the system will be educated well, this is a big environmental problem, there is no reasonable system of the company does not talk about management,Secondly, we can say that the comprehensiveness, unity and individuality of the system, some things are indeed unsolvable within the system, which requires that in terms of the system, according to the actual situation, the system is dead, and the people are alive, but the principled system cannot accept challenges and touches. You stipulate that you go to work at 8 o'clock in the system, you can't touch the high-voltage line in principle, traffic jams are your business, Zhuge Liang tears and slashes horses, you can't touch the problem of principle, you set up a military order to be able to hold, and then lost, you can't say that you don't deal with you, heartache also has to be cut, the system comes out, it must be implemented (under the condition of rigidity of the system and rationalization as the premise of support), if this person touches and does not implement, the second person will have a reason to deal with it after touching, why do you deal with me if you don't deal with it?

Once the system is challenged, it is impossible to carry out the order.

A good person can only treat himself as a good person, and a good system can treat everyone as a good person.

When the company's employee Wang resigned, he claimed that he had worked overtime during his work in the company, but the company believed that his overtime had not been approved by the supervisor and did not meet the requirements of the company's "Attendance Management System", so it did not recognize the fact that he worked overtime. Mr. Wang filed an arbitration with the Labor Dispute Arbitration Commission, demanding back overtime wages. The Labor Dispute Arbitration Commission held that the company could not provide evidence that the "Attendance Management System" had been publicized to Wang, so the system was not binding on Wang, and the company should pay him overtime wages.

Case 2: A joint venture garment company formulated the "Employee Reward and Punishment System", which clearly stated the work discipline and punishment standards for employees in each position of the company, and officially announced the implementation at the meeting of middle and senior management cadres, which took effect for all employees. Soon after, the company terminated the labor contract of Wang and Li, two employees who quarreled in the company, in accordance with the "Employee Reward and Punishment System", and Wang and Li applied for labor arbitration on the grounds that they did not know that the above system existed. The Labor Dispute Arbitration Commission held that the Company's "Employee Reward and Punishment System" had not been publicized to the employees in advance and could not be used as a basis for the Company to terminate the labor contract, and ruled that the Company should resume the employment relationship with Mr. Wang and Mr. Li.

Lawyer's Comments] The above two cases are cases in which the enterprise lost the lawsuit due to the improper method or means of publicizing the rules and regulations. In practice, although many enterprises are aware of the importance of publicity of rules and regulations, due to the lack of awareness of evidence, although they also adopt publicity, such as in the above case, they cannot be supported by the law because they cannot provide evidence after a dispute arises.

There are no express provisions in the law on how to publicize and the manner and form of publicity. In practice, there are many means that can be used for publicity or notification, for example, many enterprises hang the rules and regulations on the bulletin board for publicity, and some IT companies or large companies use their own developed internal networks to publicize, or send "public mail", etc., although these methods are simple and efficient, but can not effectively prevent legal risks, due to the difficulty of proof, once the employee denies, the enterprise will be very passive. Therefore, in order to facilitate the fixation and retention of evidence, we recommend that employers prefer to issue an employee handbook, that is, to compile or integrate the rules and regulations of the enterprise into a booklet or integrate them into the employee handbook of the enterprise, so that the employees can sign for it, confirm that they have known all the contents of the rules and regulations and agree to abide by them.

Execution is the need to be assessed according to the system, only the assessment can be strengthened, and at the same time, strengthening the system's full learning is also an aspect; Supervise case analysis, mainly learning and accident prevention, set up accident prevention points, require each profession or unit to set up 10 accident prevention points and analyze preventive measures.

Strengthening system building is an inevitable choice and an important part of deepening the construction of anti-corruption and clean government. After several decades of unremitting efforts, China's laws and regulations on clean government have been gradually established and improved, which has greatly promoted the institutionalization and scientific level of the work of combating corruption and advocating clean government. To carry out the construction of the anti-corruption system, we should not only attach great importance to the establishment and improvement of the system itself, but also pay close attention to the implementation and implementation of the system, especially to solve the problems of ineffective implementation of the system and system failure.

Taking the Han Guizhi case in the context of the in-depth promotion of the reform of the cadre and personnel system as a case, it is proposed to analyze the root causes of the failure of the system from the aspects of system design, operation mechanism, social cognition, and institutional environment, and effectively promote the construction of the anti-corruption and clean government system.

There is no contradiction between whether the contract is signed or not and whether the rules and regulations of the factory are established or not.

You don't have a contract, but you should follow the rules and regulations of the factory when you work in the factory.

The employee's signature on the receipt of the Notice of Termination of the Labor Contract only indicates that he has received the Notice of Termination of the Labor Contract, and does not indicate whether he agrees with the Company's decision to terminate the labor contract. If the employee is not satisfied with the company's decision, he or she can apply for labor arbitration in accordance with the law and claim his or her rights.

First of all, the Notice of Termination of Labor Contract should be sent to the person in person by way of direct service, and if the person refuses to sign for the receipt or it is difficult to serve it directly, a written explanation of the situation of in-person service should be made to preserve the evidence. Then, the Notice of Termination of Labor Contract should be sent to the employee by mail, preferably by express mail at the post office. If the mail is returned and cannot be delivered, the Human Resources Department shall keep the returned letter intact, which is a very important evidence of non-mailing, without this evidence, even if it is served by public notice, it is invalid.

Evidence of non-service by post may be obtained before service can be made by means of a public notice, i.e., by posting an announcement or by means of a notice through the media. 60 days from the date of issuance of the announcement shall be deemed to have been served.

Now that you have delivered it directly, write a manual and mail it by EMS.

As for compensation, it can be negotiated appropriately. If not, let's go to labor arbitration.