Script 閱讀文本
【Case & Controversy】
An employee was found to have engaged in cheating during the company’s employment examination. After being exposed, the employee agreed to become a state witness to assist in investigating and exposing other cheaters, and was promised a transfer to a subsidiary. However, due to internal changes within the company, this promise was not fulfilled, and the employee was ultimately dismissed. This has sparked a legal dispute: does such dismissal violate the principle of good faith?
An employee was found to have engaged in cheating during the company’s employment examination. After being exposed, the employee agreed to become a state witness to assist in investigating and exposing other cheaters, and was promised a transfer to a subsidiary. However, due to internal changes within the company, this promise was not fulfilled, and the employee was ultimately dismissed. This has sparked a legal dispute: does such dismissal violate the principle of good faith?
【Analysis】
Firstly, we must understand the legal meaning of the principle of good faith. It requires parties to follow the principles of honesty and consideration for the interests of others when exercising rights and fulfilling obligations. This does not require parties to completely disregard their own interests but rather to determine and fulfill rights in a manner consistent with justice and fairness within specific rights and obligations relationships. In this case, the Supreme Court held that the dismissal violated the principle of good faith because the employee acted as a state witness and should have received the benefits promised by the company. The head of the company’s discipline department had promised to assist the employee in transferring to a subsidiary, which created a certain degree of reliance on the part of the employee. However, the trial court held that the dismissal was valid because the employee’s admission was based on cheating, and the employee knew that they could not continue to work for the company.
This case raises several important questions: did the company’s personnel create reliance on the part of the employee? To what extent is such reliance worthy of protection? In balancing the legitimate reliance of the employee and the company’s interest in maintaining the integrity of the examination, did the company violate the principle of good faith?
In discussing these issues, we must consider that the promise made by the head of the discipline department may have only been to “assist,” and actual transfer would still require the approval of senior management and the subsidiary. Therefore, the expectations generated by such a promise may only receive limited protection. Additionally, if the dismissal is deemed to be a violation of the principle of good faith, it may result in the employee continuing to remain with the original company, which does not align with the expectations of good faith.
Overall, this case underscores the importance of the principle of good faith in labor relations and how to balance the expectations of the parties involved and the interests of the company in practical operations. This is not only a legal issue but also a moral one, requiring companies to consider the legitimate reliance of employees and overall fairness and justice when making decisions. This case also serves as a reminder that in any commitment or agreement, the scope of rights and obligations must be clearly defined and integrity must be maintained throughout the execution process. This is the cornerstone of building a just society and upholding the dignity of the law.
Translation 中文翻譯
【案例 & 爭點】
一名員工在公司的僱用考試中被發現參與了舞弊行為。該員工在被揭露後同意成為污點證人以協助調查揭露其他舞弊者，並被承諾將轉任至子公司。然而，其後由於公司內部變動，這一承諾未能實現，該員工最終被解僱。這引發了一個法律爭議：這樣的解僱是否違反了誠信原則？
【解析】
首先，我們必須理解誠信原則在法律上的意義。它要求當事人在行使權利和履行義務時必須遵循正直和兼顧他人利益的行為準則。這不是要求當事人完全忽視自己的利益，而是要求在具體的權利義務關係中，依正義和公平的方法確定和實現權利內容。
在這個案例中，最高法院認為解僱違反了誠信原則，因為員工作為污點證人，應該獲得公司所承諾的利益。公司的政風處組長已經承諾協助員工轉任至子公司，這一承諾使員工有了一定程度的信賴。然而，原審法院則認為解僱是有效的，因為員工的錄取本身就是基於舞弊，且員工明知自己無法繼續在公司任職。
這個案例提出了幾個重要的問題：公司人員是否引起了員工的信賴？這種信賴值得保護到什麼程度？在衡量員工的正當信賴和公司維持考試公正性的利益時，公司是否違反了誠信原則？
在討論這些問題時，我們必須考慮到公司的政風處組長的承諾可能只是「協助」，而實際的轉任還需要公司高層和子公司的同意。因此，這種承諾所產生的期待可能只能獲得有限的保護。此外，如果解僱被認為是違反誠信原則的，這可能導致員工繼續留在原公司，這樣的結果並不符合誠信原則的期待。
總的來說，這個案例強調了在勞動關係中誠信原則的重要性，以及在實際操作中如何平衡當事人的期待和公司的利益。這不僅是一個法律問題，也是一個道德問題，要求公司在做出決策時必須考慮到員工的正當信賴和整體的公平正義。這個案例也提醒我們，在任何承諾或協議中，都必須清楚地界定權利和義務的範圍，並且在執行過程中保持誠信。這是建立一個公正社會和維護法律尊嚴的基石。
CHECK THIS OUT 學習知識點
Look at this sentence: ‘the promise made by the head of the discipline department may have only been to “assist,”. In this sentence there is a reduced relative clause: ‘made by the head of the department’. It should be ‘the promise which was made’ but here we can omit the relative pronoun and the passive auxiliary to make a long subject for the verb ‘may’. This is quite common.
請看這個句子：「政風處組長的承諾可能只是『協助』。在這個句子中，有一個縮小的相對句：「made by the head of the department」。應該是「the promise which was made」，但在這裡我們可以省略關係代名詞和被動助詞，為動詞 「may」做一個長主語。這很常見。
