Law Hall: "Single" Agreement Is Contrary To Law.

Two years ago, Ms. Zhao and her unit signed a labor contract for 5 years. Because the unit was worried that she would get married and have children's holidays during the contract period, it would affect her work in the contract period. Therefore, in the contract, she agreed that she would not be able to give birth even if she was married within 5 years. If there was any violation, the unit had the right to cancel the contract unilaterally.

Because she wanted to get the job, Ms Zhao had no choice but to sign the contract.

But I didn't expect to have a favorite object and get married soon. I was planning to give birth to a baby recently. After knowing her situation, the unit decided to terminate her labor contract immediately.

Ms. Zhao asked, "my contract has not yet expired. Is it reasonable for the unit to do so? Do I agree with the unit's single appointment?"

The eighty-seventh provision of the labor contract law stipulates: "if an employer violates the provisions of this law to terminate or terminate the labor contract, it shall pay compensation to the laborer in accordance with two times the standard of economic compensation stipulated in the forty-seventh provision of this law."

That is, if the company goes its own way, it must comply with the working life of Ms. Zhao.

Pay double compensation to Ms Zhao.

"Although Ms. Zhao and the unit have a prior engagement, it is still in the form of contract, but the contract is invalid because the contents of the contract contradict the law."

The legal profession believes that, in the first instance, the "single appointment" in this case is illegal.

The third provision of the marriage law stipulates: "Prohibition of arranged business, buying and selling marriage and other acts of interfering in the freedom of marriage."

The term "freedom of marriage" refers to the marriage parties' marriage in accordance with the law.

No one can impose or intervene on any grounds for full autonomy.

In this case, the company is not allowed to marry during the contract period as the condition for signing and fulfilling the labor contract, and the violation of the "Singleton agreement" by Ms Zhao as the right to unilaterally terminate the labor contract is obviously a violation of her marital autonomy and interference.

In the twenty-sixth clause (three) of the labor contract law, it is pointed out that "labor contracts that violate the mandatory provisions of laws and administrative regulations" are invalid. That is to say, "single appointment" has no legal binding force on Ms. Zhao from the very beginning, and she has the right to refuse to perform the agreement.

Secondly, "

"Is not a statutory reason for unilaterally dissolving the labor contract.

The thirty-ninth clause of the labor contract law stipulates: "if a worker has one of the following circumstances, the unit may rescind the contract: (1) it is proved to be inconsistent with the employment conditions during the probation period; (two) serious violation of the rules and regulations of the unit; (three) serious dereliction of duty, malpractice and serious damage to the unit; (four) establishing labor relations with other units at the same time, seriously affecting the completion of the work tasks of the unit, or refusing to make corrections through the unit; (five) making or changing the labor contract by fraud or coercion or by taking advantage of danger, resulting in the invalidation of the contract; (six) being investigated for criminal responsibility according to law."

That is, "single appointment" is not listed in it.

On the other hand, the company must bear the liability of compensation.