论文部分内容阅读
2006年3月,张某看到某外资企业的一则招聘广告:“本单位录用的员工将被送到国外培训半年至一年”。他去面试被录用了,于是他辞去了原来的工作,进了新单位。到新单位的张某对工作充满希望.想通过努力工作及时得到出国的机会。但是两年过去了,出国培训的事情依然没有动静,张某觉得单位没有兑现招聘时的承诺,严重侵犯了自己的合法利益,遂将单位告到劳动争议仲裁委员会,请求公司履行“招聘广告”中规定的义务。劳动仲裁委员会受理此案后,做出如下裁决:张某与该外资企业的劳动合同并没有规定公司应当送张某出国培训,因此公司没有此项义务。招聘广告中的承诺,没有写进劳动合同中,因此不具备法律效力,驳回张某提出单位应当履行“招聘广告”中规定的义务的请求。
In March 2006, Zhang saw a recruitment advertisement for a foreign-funded enterprise: “The employees hired by this unit will be sent to foreign countries for training for six months to one year.” He was hired to interview, so he resigned from the original work, into the new unit. Zhang, who is a new unit, is full of hope for his work and wants to get abroad in time through hard work. But two years later, things going abroad training still no movement, Zhang felt that units did not honor promises of hiring, a serious violation of their legitimate interests, then the unit sued the labor dispute arbitration commission, asked the company to perform “recruitment advertisement ”In the provisions of the obligations. After the labor arbitration commission accepted the case, the following ruling was made: The labor contract between Zhang and the foreign-funded enterprise did not require the company to send Zhang a training abroad, so the company did not have this obligation. Recruitment advertising promises, did not write into the labor contract, so do not have the force of law, dismissed Zhang proposed units should perform “job advertisements ” in the obligations stipulated in the request.