您的位置: 首页 » 法律资料网 » 法律法规 »

吉林省人才市场条例

时间:2024-07-04 15:02:12 来源: 法律资料网 作者:法律资料网 阅读:8748
下载地址: 点击此处下载

吉林省人才市场条例

吉林省人大常委会


吉林省人才市场条例
吉林省人民代表大会常务委员会


(吉林省第九届人民代表大会常务委员会第十六次会议于2000年3月31日通过)

第一章 总则
第一条 为了促进人才合理流动和人才资源优化配置,维护人才市场秩序,为我省经济和社会发展服务,根据有关法律、法规的规定,结合本省实际,制定本条例。
第二条 本条例所称人才是指具有中专以上学历或者取得专业技术职务任职资格以及其他具有同等专业技术和管理水平的人员。
本条例所称人才市场是指一切单位和个人有偿从事的人才招聘、应聘和其他人事管理服务活动。
本条例所称人才中介机构,是指在人才市场活动中为用人单位和求职者相互选择提供居间介绍以及相关服务的组织。
第三条 人才市场活动应当坚持公开、平等、竞争、诚实、信用的原则。
第四条 各级人民政府应当把培育和发展人才市场纳入社会经济发展和市场体系建设规划,鼓励、扶持、促进人才市场健康发展。
第五条 县级以上人民政府人事行政部门是人才市场的主管部门,负责本行政区域内人才市场的管理工作。
第六条 在本省行政区域内从事与人才市场有关的活动,均须遵守本条例。

第二章 人才中介机构
第七条 设立人才中介机构必须取得县级以上人民政府人事行政部门发放的《人才中介许可证》,法律、法规规定还须办理其他手续的,按照规定办理。
第八条 申请领取《人才中介许可证》,必须具备下列条件:
(一)开展人才中介活动的固定场所和相应设施;
(二)业务范围符合法律、法规的规定;
(三)健全的章程;
(四)有5名以上经县级以上人民政府人事行政部门考核合格的工作人员;
(五)国家规定的其他条件。
第九条 省直和中直驻省单位、其他省外单位在本省行政区域内设立人才中介机构的,跨市(州)设立人才中介机构的,以及设立冠以吉林省名称人才中介机构的,由省人民政府人事行政部门发放《人才中介许可证》。
市(州)直单位和跨县(市、区)设立人才中介机构的,以及设立冠以市(州)名称人才中介机构的,由市(州)人民政府人事行政部门发放《人才中介许可证》。
县(市、区)设立人才中介机构的,以及设立冠以县(市、区)名称人才中介机构的,由县(市、区)人民政府人事行政部门发放《人才中介许可证》。
第十条 人民政府人事行政部门自接到申办人才中介机构申请之日起,应当按本条例规定的条件在15个工作日内办理完结。对符合条件的,应当予以批准;对不符合条件的,应当书面通知申请人。
第十一条 人才中介机构可以开展下列活动:
(一)提供人才供求信息;
(二)办理人才求职登记和用人推荐;
(三)组织人才招聘活动;
(四)组织人才培训;
(五)法律、法规允许的其他人才中介活动。
第十二条 人才中介机构受县级以上人民政府人事行政部门委托,可以从事人事档案管理的相关业务。
第十三条 人才中介机构开展中介活动,必须遵守下列规定:
(一)不得侵犯用人单位和人才的合法权益;
(二)不得提供虚假信息和从事其他欺诈活动;
(三)不得超越《人才中介许可证》许可的业务活动范围。
第十四条 人才中介机构变更名称、地址、法定代表人,应当到原发证机关办理变更手续。
第十五条 人才中介活动必须严格执行国家和省有关的收费标准。

第三章 人才招聘
第十六条 用人单位通过人才中介机构招聘人才,必须具备下列条件:
(一)本单位成立的批准文件或者营业执照;
(二)招聘人才的数量、岗位、条件及待遇;
(三)省外单位在我省招聘人才,还应当提交单位所在地县级以上人民政府人事行政部门的审批文件。
第十七条 用人单位委托人才中介机构代理招聘人才,应当与人才中介机构签订合同。
第十八条 用人单位通过新闻媒体和其他传播媒介发布人才招聘启事,必须经过县级以上人民政府人事行政部门审查批准。
新闻单位和其他传播媒介不得刊登、播发未经审查批准的人才招聘启事。
第十九条 人民政府人事行政部门自接到发布人才招聘启事申请之日起,应当在3个工作日内办理完结。对符合条件的,应当予以批准;对不符合条件的,应当书面通知申请人。
第二十条 用人单位和应聘者确立聘用关系,应当在平等、自愿的基础上签订书面合同。
第二十一条 用人单位招聘人才必须遵守下列规定:
(一)不得采用提供虚假人才信息和作出虚假承诺等不正当手段招聘人才;
(二)不得以任何名义向应聘者收取费用;
(三)不得采取其他方式牟取非法利益;
(四)不得因其民族、性别、宗教信仰而歧视。
第二十二条 人才中介机构举办人才交流会(包括人才招聘洽谈会、人才交流洽谈会、人才竞聘会),均须具有完备的组织方案和安全措施,并由发放《人才中介许可证》的人民政府人事行政部门审核批准。
第二十三条 人民政府人事行政部门自接到举办人才交流会申请之日起,应当在10个工作日内办理完结。对符合条件的,应当予以批准;对不符合条件的,应当书面通知申请人。

第四章 人才应聘
第二十四条 通过人才中介机构求职择业的人员,应当提供本人居民身份证、毕业证书以及其他相关证件和材料,并如实填报本人履历。
第二十五条 经人才中介机构求职择业的人员,有工作单位的,不得擅自离职。与单位签订合同的,必须事先解除合同;没有签订合同的,应当提前30日以书面形式通知所在单位。
第二十六条 担负县级以上重点工程、科技攻关项目的技术或者管理的主要负责人员,在项目完成之前流动的,须经有关部门和单位同意。
第二十七条 应聘人员人事档案,按照规定应当由人才中介机构管理的,原存档单位应当在应聘人员离岗30日内,向人民政府人事行政部门委托的人才中介机构移交。
第二十八条 应聘人员离开原单位,不得泄露国家秘密和原单位的商业秘密、技术秘密。

第五章 法律责任
第二十九条 对违反本条例第七条规定,未取得《人才中介许可证》设立人才中介机构、从事人才中介活动的,责令其停止中介活动,没收违法所得,并处违法所得一倍以上三倍以下的罚款。
第三十条 对违反本条例第十三条三项规定之一的,没收违法所得,并处违法所得一倍以上三倍以下的罚款。情节严重的,吊销《人才中介许可证》。
第三十一条 对违反本条例第十四条规定,未办理变更手续而继续从事人才中介活动的,给予警告,责令限期改正;逾期未改正的,处以人民币一千元以上三千元以下的罚款;情节严重的,吊销《人才中介许可证》。
第三十二条 对违反本条例第十五条、第十八条规定,在人才中介活动中擅自提高收费标准,扩大收费范围,刊登、播发未经县级以上人民政府人事行政部门审查批准的人才招聘启事的,按有关规定处理。
第三十三条 对违反本条例第二十一条规定,用人单位采用不正当手段招聘人才、向应聘者收取费用或以其他方式牟取非法利益的,责令其退还所收费用,没收违法所得,并处违法所得一倍以上三倍以下的罚款。
第三十四条 在人才市场活动中,违反治安管理规定的,由公安机关依法处罚;构成犯罪的,由司法机关依法追究刑事责任;给其他单位和个人造成损失的,依法承担赔偿责任。
第三十五条 县级以上人民政府人事行政部门的工作人员在人才市场活动中滥用职权、玩忽职守、徇私舞弊的,由其所在单位或者上级机关给予行政处分;构成犯罪的,由司法机关依法追究刑事责任。
第三十六条 本条例规定的行政处罚由县级以上人民政府人事行政部门决定。法律、法规另有规定的,按照规定办理。
第三十七条 具有下列行为之一的,当事人可以依法申请行政复议或者提起行政诉讼:
(一)认为符合条件,申请领取《人才中介许可证》及举办人才交流会、发布人才招聘启事,未获批准的;
(二)县级以上人民政府人事行政部门办理审批、发证事项超过规定期限的;
(三)对行政处罚决定不服的。
第三十八条 受委托管理人事档案的单位,丢失、损坏、涂改或伪造档案的,由委托部门或者有关部门对主要责任人和直接责任者给予行政处分;构成犯罪的,依法追究刑事责任。
对档案所有人造成损失的,给予弥补或赔偿。

第六章 附则
第三十九条 境外组织及个人在本省行政区域内设立人才中介机构,按照国家有关规定执行。
第四十条 本条例自公布之日起施行。



2000年3月31日
Chapter Ⅲ
Initiation of Panel Procedures


OUTLINE

Section One Role of Consultations: Art. 4
I The Importance of Consultations
II Issues Concerning the “adequacy” of Consultations
Section Two Establishment of Panels: Art. 6.2
I Introduction
II Indication of Consultations Process
III Identification of “the specific measures at issue”
IV Provision of “a brief summary of the legal basis of the complaint”
V Concluding Remarks
Section Three Terms of Reference of Panels: Art. 7
I Introduction
II Effect of Consultations on Terms of Reference of Panels
III The “matter referred to the DSB”
Section Four The Mandate of Compliance Panels: Art. 21.5
I Introduction
II Clarification of “measures taken to comply”
III Perspective of Review under Art.21.5
IV Examination of the New Measure in Its Totality and in Its Application
Section Five Third Party Rights : Art. 10
I Introduction
II Generic Third Party Rights: Interpretation of Art. 10.3
III Extended Third Party Rights: Exercise of Panels’ Discretion
IV Summary and Conclusions





Section One
Role of Consultations: Art. 4

The procedures for consultations under the WTO, significantly different from the procedures for good offices, conciliation or mediation as prescribed in Art. 5 of the DSU which remains voluntary options if the parties to the dispute so agree, remains a mandatory first step in the dispute settlement process as embodied with text of Art. 4 of the DSU. However, as to be shown below, there is something to be clarified so as to understand appropriately the role of consultations under the WTO dispute settlement mechanism.

I The Importance of Consultations
The practice of GATT contracting parties in regularly holding consultations is testimony to the important role of consultations in dispute settlement. Art. 4.1 of the DSU recognizes this practice and further provides that: “Members affirm their resolve to strengthen and improve the effectiveness of the consultation procedures employed by Members.” A number of reports made by panels or by the Appellate Body under the WTO have recognized the value of consultations within the dispute settlement process.
As noted by a panel, Members’ duty to consult concerns a matter with utmost seriousness: “Compliance with the fundamental obligation of WTO Members to enter into consultations where a request is made under the DSU is vital to the operation of the dispute settlement system. Article 4.2 of the DSU provides that ‘[e]ach Member undertakes to accord sympathetic consideration to and afford adequate opportunity for consultation regarding any representations made by another Member concerning measures affecting the operation of any covered agreement taken within the territory of the former’. Moreover, pursuant to Article 4.6 of the DSU, consultations are ‘without prejudice to the rights of any Member in any further proceedings’. In our view, these provisions make clear that Members' duty to consult is absolute, and is not susceptible to the prior imposition of any terms and conditions by a Member.” 1
Another panel addresses the essence of consultations, and they rule there that: “Indeed, in our view, the very essence of consultations is to enable the parties gather correct and relevant information, for purposes of assisting them in arriving at a mutually agreed solution, or failing which, to assist them in presenting accurate information to the panel.”2
The Appellate Body confirms panels’ rulings in this respect. For example, the Appellate Body stresses those benefits afforded by consultations to the dispute settlement system in Mexico-HFCS(DS132)(21.5)as: “[…] Through consultations, parties exchange information, assess the strengths and weaknesses of their respective cases, narrow the scope of the differences between them and, in many cases, reach a mutually agreed solution in accordance with the explicit preference expressed in Article 3.7 of the DSU. Moreover, even where no such agreed solution is reached, consultations provide the parties an opportunity to define and delimit the scope of the dispute between them. Clearly, consultations afford many benefits to complaining and responding parties, as well as to third parties and to the dispute settlement system as a whole.”3

II Issues Concerning the “adequacy” of Consultations
As noted above, the procedures for consultations remain a mandatory first step in the dispute settlement process under the WTO. However, does it mean that there is a requirement for the adequacy of consultations before initiating a panel proceeding?
With regard to this issue, on the one hand, the Panel on Alcoholic Beverages (DS75/DS84) finds that, “the WTO jurisprudence so far has not recognized any concept of ‘adequacy’ of consultations”, the Panel Report reads in pertinent part:4
“In our view, the WTO jurisprudence so far has not recognized any concept of ‘adequacy’ of consultations. The only requirement under the DSU is that consultations were in fact held, or were at least requested, and that a period of sixty days has elapsed from the time consultations were requested to the time a request for a panel was made. What takes place in those consultations is not the concern of a panel. The point was put clearly by the Panel in Bananas III, where it was stated:
‘Consultations are […] a matter reserved for the parties. The DSB is not involved; no panel is involved; and the consultations are held in the absence of the Secretariat. While a mutually agreed solution is to be preferred, in some cases it is not possible for parties to agree upon one. In those cases, it is our view that the function of a panel is only to ascertain that the consultations, if required, were in fact held. […]’
Chapter VII
Special Rules for Anti-dumping Disputes

OUTLINE

Section One Recourse of Anti-dumping Disputes to the DSB
I Introduction
II Sufficiency of Panel Request under the AD Agreement
(i) Art. 6.2 of the DSU and Article 17.4 of the AD Agreement
(ii) Art. 6.2 of the DSU and Article 17.5(i) of the AD Agreement
(iii) A Summary Guiding
III General Legal Basis for Claims against Legislation as Such
IV Special Rules for Claims against Anti-dumping Legislation as Such
(i) Introduction
(ii)General Legal Basis under Art. 17 of the AD Agreement
(iii) Understanding of Art. 17.4 of the AD Agreement
(iv) Extensive Basis in Context
(v) A Summary
Section Two Ad hoc Standard of Review for Anti-dumping Disputes
I Introduction
II Special Standard of Review under the AD Agreement: in General
(i) Ad hoc Approaches to Domestic Determination: Art. 17.6
(ii) Relationship between Art. 11 of the DSU and Art. 17.6 of the AD Agreement
(iii) A Summary Guiding
III Scope of Review of Fact-findings: Art. 17.5(ii) of the AD Agreement
(i)Overview of the GATT Practice
(ii)Concerned Rulings in Reports Issued by WTO Panels
(iii)Tentative Remarks: Guidance from the Appellate Body





Section One
Recourse of Anti-dumping Disputes to the DSB

I Introduction
Compared to the legally fragmented previous GATT dispute settlement system, the new WTO dispute settlement system is an integrated system with much broader jurisdiction and less scope for “rule shopping” and “forum shopping”. However, according to Art. 1.2 of the DSU which states in part that, “[t]he rules and procedures of this Understanding shall apply subject to such special or additional rules and procedures on dispute settlement contained in the covered agreements as are identified in Appendix 2 to this Understanding”, many covered agreements under the WTO jurisdiction continue to include special dispute settlement rules and procedures. Such special rules and procedures are listed in Appendix 2 to the DSU. And in this chapter, we will focus on such special dispute settlement rules concerning anti-dumping disputes, i.e. Arts. 17.4 through 17.7 of the Anti-dumping Agreement (‘the AD Agreement’).
An analysis of the DSB practice suggests a separate contribution of this chapter to this book, merited by dispute settlement proceedings in the anti-dumping field. In this chapter, the author focuses on the two main issues repeatedly raised, as preliminary or procedural issues, during dispute settlement regarding anti-dumping. One is the issue of recourse of anti-dumping disputes to the DSB, which deals mainly with Arts. 17.4 and 17.5(i) of the AD Agreement; the other one is the issue of standard of review in anti-dumping areas, which runs most on Art. 17.6, including Art. 17.5(ii), of the AD Agreement. And in this section we will focus on the first one. In this respect, Arts. 17.4 and 17.5(i) of the AD Agreement states:

“17.4 If the Member that requested consultations considers that the consultations pursuant to paragraph 3 have failed to achieve a mutually agreed solution, and if final action has been taken by the administering authorities of the importing Member to levy definitive anti-dumping duties or to accept price undertakings, it may refer the matter to the Dispute Settlement Body (“DSB”). When a provisional measure has a significant impact and the Member that requested consultations considers that the measure was taken contrary to the provisions of paragraph 1 of Article 7, that Member may also refer such matter to the DSB.
17.5 The DSB shall, at the request of complaining party, establish a panel to examine the matter based upon:
(i) a written statement of the Member making the request indicating how a benefit accruing to it, directly or indirectly, under this Agreement has been nullified or impaired, or that the achieving of the objectives of the Agreement is being impeded, and
(ii) …”
II Sufficiency of Panel Request under the AD Agreement
Generally, as noted in previously, it is only where the provisions of the DSU and the special or additional rules and procedures of a covered agreement cannot be read as complementing each other that the special or additional provisions are to prevail. A special or additional provision should only be found to prevail over a provision of the DSU in a situation where adherence to the one provision will lead to a violation of the other provision, that is, in the case of a conflict between them. Then the author means to get down to the issue of whether these provisions cited above limits panel request under the AD Agreement to somehow other than those required by Art. 6.2 of the DSU.
In Mexico-HFCS (DS132), the dispute involves the imposition of a definitive anti-dumping measure by the Mexican Ministry of Trade and Industrial Development (SECOFI) on imports of high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) from the United States. Mexico argues that the United States' request for establishment of this Panel is not consistent with the requirements of Art. 6.2 of the DSU and Art. 17.4 and 17.5(i) of the AD Agreement, and therefore argues that the Panel must terminate the proceeding without reaching the substance of the United States' claims.
(i) Art. 6.2 of the DSU and Art. 17.4 of the AD Agreement
In considering the alleged failure to assert claims under Art. 6.2 of the DSU and Art. 17.4 of the AD Agreement, the Panel rules that: 1
“[W]e note first that the Appellate Body has stated that Article 6.2 of the DSU and Article 17.4 of the AD Agreement are complementary and should be applied together in disputes under the AD Agreement. It has further stated that: ‘the word “matter” has the same meaning in Article 17 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement as it has in Article 7 of the DSU. It consists of two element: The specific “measure” and the “claims” relating to it, both of which must be properly identified in a panel request as required by Article 6.2 of the DSU.’