论文部分内容阅读
《中国社会保障》杂志2005年第2 期会诊台栏目刊载“未及时送达的开除决定是否有效”一文。该文介绍, 1996年12月,某集团免去魏某职务。 1999年12月,魏某出国,直至2003年 4月才回到国内。2000年10月,集团经职代会讨论通过,以魏某长期旷工为由,决定对其开除公职。因魏某不在国内,集团在媒体上刊登了对魏某的开除决定。2003年4月28日,集团交给魏某一份开除决定的复印件。对开除决定的事实依据部分,魏某未提出异议,一审法院和二审法院认定相同。对于开除文书的送达,魏某和集团之间,一审法院和二审法院之间存在严重分歧。
“China Social Security” magazine 2005 No. 2 consultation column published “is not timely delivery of the expulsion decision is valid” article. This article introduces, in December of 1996, a group is exempted from the post of Wei Mou. In December 1999, Wei went abroad until April 2003 and returned to China. In October 2000, the group discussed and approved by the working assembly to take the long-term absenteeism of Wei to decide on the expulsion from office. Because Wemou is not in China, the group published a media decision on the expulsion of Wei. April 28, 2003, the group handed a copy of the expulsion decision Wei. On the basis of the factual basis of the expelled decision, Wei did not challenge the case and the court of first instance and the court of second instance held the same opinion. There was a serious disagreement between the court of first instance and the court of second instance for the delivery of the expulsive instruments.