【摘要】：企業(yè)之間競(jìng)爭(zhēng)的核心在于人才的競(jìng)爭(zhēng)，誰(shuí)擁有足夠優(yōu)秀的人才就能夠在眾多競(jìng)爭(zhēng)者中立于不敗之地。然而，跳槽現(xiàn)象的不斷發(fā)生，人才流動(dòng)的加劇，用人單位為了保護(hù)自己的商業(yè)秘密等信息不被因此泄露，往往與員工簽訂競(jìng)業(yè)限制協(xié)議。競(jìng)業(yè)限制協(xié)議是競(jìng)業(yè)限制的基礎(chǔ)，但其即使是用人單位與勞動(dòng)者意思表示一致的結(jié)果，也難免出現(xiàn)用人單位利用自身優(yōu)勢(shì)強(qiáng)迫勞動(dòng)者簽訂之嫌。如果離職后的勞動(dòng)者負(fù)擔(dān)競(jìng)業(yè)限制義務(wù)，可能無(wú)法活用其原本所熟悉的知識(shí)或者技能以謀生，給其憲法上所賦予的勞動(dòng)者自由擇業(yè)的權(quán)利甚至是生存權(quán)帶來(lái)侵害。因此本文主要探討《勞動(dòng)合同法》語(yǔ)境下的競(jìng)業(yè)限制，著重涉及勞動(dòng)者離職后的競(jìng)業(yè)行為。 競(jìng)業(yè)限制協(xié)議的有效與否更是直接關(guān)系到用人單位商業(yè)秘密的保護(hù)以及對(duì)勞動(dòng)者就業(yè)權(quán)、生存權(quán)的限制。我國(guó)對(duì)于競(jìng)業(yè)限制制度的研究起步較晚，針對(duì)競(jìng)業(yè)限制協(xié)議效力問(wèn)題的法律法規(guī)極不完善，相關(guān)理論未能達(dá)成統(tǒng)一的認(rèn)識(shí)，2013年2月最高人民法院《關(guān)于審理勞動(dòng)爭(zhēng)議案件適用法律若干問(wèn)題的解釋（四）》中也僅涉及競(jìng)業(yè)限制協(xié)議的部分內(nèi)容，具體規(guī)定尚存在缺陷，導(dǎo)致司法實(shí)踐中諸多問(wèn)題。因此，有必要對(duì)競(jìng)業(yè)限制協(xié)議的效力進(jìn)行研究。競(jìng)業(yè)限制協(xié)議的法律效力是完全依據(jù)契約自由的原則充分尊重當(dāng)事人合意即可，還是需要由法律設(shè)定一定的限制，而怎樣才是合理化的限制，才能使其真正實(shí)現(xiàn)公平公正的目標(biāo)，更是我們要研究的問(wèn)題。 本文分為五個(gè)部分: 在第一部分，以競(jìng)業(yè)限制的概念、分類為基礎(chǔ)，分析競(jìng)業(yè)限制協(xié)議的特點(diǎn)、性質(zhì)，為競(jìng)業(yè)限制協(xié)議的效力分析作鋪墊。 在第二部分，從最初競(jìng)業(yè)限制協(xié)議的效力之爭(zhēng)論出發(fā)，探討承認(rèn)競(jìng)業(yè)限制協(xié)議有效存在的理論基礎(chǔ)，具體包括契約自由原則，利益平衡原則、誠(chéng)信原則。三原則相互結(jié)合、不斷修正，反映出競(jìng)業(yè)限制協(xié)議理論的形成過(guò)程。 第三部分介紹我國(guó)目前競(jìng)業(yè)限制協(xié)議效力之相關(guān)法律、地方性法規(guī)、部門規(guī)章、司法解釋等規(guī)定，，指出我國(guó)競(jìng)業(yè)限制協(xié)議效力的有關(guān)立法中存在的漏洞，通過(guò)典型案例的分析、法院的裁判結(jié)果，分析目前司法實(shí)踐中對(duì)于競(jìng)業(yè)限制協(xié)議效力之認(rèn)識(shí)。 第四部分結(jié)合國(guó)外先進(jìn)立法，將影響競(jìng)業(yè)限制協(xié)議效力之主要因素單獨(dú)加以探討，在國(guó)外，對(duì)于競(jìng)業(yè)限制協(xié)議的效力，除了美國(guó)一些州持根本性的否定態(tài)度之外，絕大多數(shù)國(guó)家（地區(qū)）均認(rèn)為其有適用的基礎(chǔ)，但在具體約定時(shí)需有合理的限制，只是在影響效力的各因素中有所差異，主要涉及“適用主體、協(xié)議形式、用人單位可保護(hù)利益、離職原因、經(jīng)濟(jì)補(bǔ)償、期限地域行業(yè)范圍”，評(píng)析影響競(jìng)業(yè)限制協(xié)議效力之標(biāo)準(zhǔn)及生效要件，是本文之重點(diǎn)所在。 第五部分則結(jié)合我國(guó)立法及司法實(shí)踐，對(duì)影響競(jìng)業(yè)限制協(xié)議效力之因素進(jìn)行分類，提出競(jìng)業(yè)限制協(xié)議效力的審查標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，歸納出競(jìng)業(yè)限制協(xié)議合法有效之要件，對(duì)不影響競(jìng)業(yè)限制協(xié)議效力的各因素進(jìn)行合理化調(diào)整，以完善我國(guó)競(jìng)業(yè)限制之立法規(guī)定。
[Abstract]:The core of competition among enterprises lies in the competition of talents, who has enough excellent talents can be invincible in many competitors. However, job-hopping phenomenon occurs constantly, the flow of talents is intensifying, employers often sign a non-competition agreement with employees in order to protect their business secrets and other information from being disclosed. The agreement of non-competition restriction is the basis of non-competition restriction, but even if the employer agrees with the laborer's intention, it will inevitably lead to the suspicion that the employer forces the laborer to sign the agreement by using its own advantages. Therefore, this paper mainly discusses the restriction of competition in the context of the Labor Contract Law, and focuses on the competition behavior of workers after leaving their jobs.
The validity of the non-competition agreement is directly related to the protection of employers'trade secrets and the restriction of workers' employment rights and survival rights.The research on the non-competition agreement started late in China.The laws and regulations on the effectiveness of the non-competition agreement are very imperfect and the relevant theories have not reached a unified understanding. The Supreme People's Court's Interpretation of Several Questions Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Labor Dispute Cases (4) only deals with some of the contents of the non-competition agreement, and there are still some defects in the specific provisions, which lead to many problems in judicial practice. Therefore, it is necessary to study the validity of the non-competition agreement. According to the principle of freedom of contract, we should fully respect the parties'consent, or should we set certain restrictions by law, and how to rationalize the restrictions in order to achieve the goal of fairness and justice is a question we should study.
This article is divided into five parts.
In the first part, based on the concept and classification of competition restriction, the characteristics and nature of competition restriction agreement are analyzed, which paves the way for the effectiveness analysis of competition restriction agreement.
In the second part, starting from the controversy over the validity of the original non-competition agreement, the author discusses the theoretical basis of admitting the validity of the non-competition agreement, including the principle of freedom of contract, the principle of balance of interests, and the principle of good faith.
The third part introduces the relevant laws, local regulations, departmental regulations and judicial interpretation of the validity of the non-competition agreement in China, points out the loopholes in the legislation of the non-competition agreement validity in China, and analyzes the effectiveness of the non-competition agreement in the current judicial practice through the analysis of typical cases and the judgment results of the court. Understanding.
The fourth part discusses the main factors that affect the validity of the non-competition agreement separately with the advanced legislation of foreign countries. In foreign countries, most countries (regions) think that the non-competition agreement has the applicable basis except some states in the United States hold a fundamental negative attitude toward its validity, but it needs to be reasonable and limited in the specific agreement. However, there are some differences in the factors affecting the validity of the agreement, mainly involving "the subject of application, the form of agreement, the employer's protection of interests, the reasons for resignation, economic compensation, the time limit of the geographical and industrial scope". It is the focus of this paper to evaluate the criteria and the effective elements of the agreement affecting the validity of the non-competition restriction.
The fifth part classifies the factors that affect the validity of the non-competition agreement according to the legislation and judicial practice of our country, puts forward the criteria for examining the validity of the non-competition agreement, sums up the requirements for its validity and rationalizes the factors that do not affect the validity of the non-competition agreement so as to perfect the non-competition agreement in our country. Legislative provisions.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：西南政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2013
【分類號(hào)】：D922.52

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 葉靜漪;任學(xué)敏;;我國(guó)競(jìng)業(yè)限制制度的構(gòu)建[J];法學(xué)雜志;2006年04期

2 鄭愛(ài)青;;從英法勞動(dòng)法判例看勞動(dòng)法上的忠實(shí)義務(wù)與競(jìng)業(yè)限制條款——對(duì)我國(guó)《勞動(dòng)合同法》規(guī)范競(jìng)業(yè)限制行為的思考和建議[J];法學(xué)家;2006年02期

3 王飛;忠誠(chéng)義務(wù)與競(jìng)業(yè)禁止[J];法學(xué);2000年02期

4 許明月;袁文全;;離職競(jìng)業(yè)禁止的理論基礎(chǔ)與制度設(shè)計(jì)[J];法學(xué);2007年04期

5 董保華;;由競(jìng)業(yè)限制經(jīng)濟(jì)補(bǔ)償爭(zhēng)鳴引發(fā)的思考——兼與葉靜漪教授商榷[J];法學(xué);2010年10期

6 施卓南;;競(jìng)業(yè)限制的問(wèn)題與對(duì)策研究[J];法制與社會(huì);2012年08期

7 馬蓉蓉;;離職競(jìng)業(yè)禁止的合理性研究[J];甘肅政法學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2007年03期

8 夏虹;;略論競(jìng)業(yè)禁止的法律規(guī)制——商業(yè)秘密權(quán)與勞動(dòng)權(quán)保護(hù)之平衡[J];科技創(chuàng)業(yè)月刊;2009年01期

9 李永明;競(jìng)業(yè)禁止的若干問(wèn)題[J];法學(xué)研究;2002年05期

10 徐敬云;離職后競(jìng)業(yè)禁止協(xié)議效力的分析[J];中國(guó)勞動(dòng);2002年12期

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 徐陽(yáng);勞動(dòng)權(quán)保障視域下的競(jìng)業(yè)禁止法律制度研究[D];吉林大學(xué);2010年

本文編號(hào)：2226984