劳动合同形式强制的反思与完善  

Retrospection and Optimization of Mandatory Form of Employment Contract

作　　者：范围[1,2] 

机构地区：[1]首都经济贸易大学劳动经济学院 [2]中国政法大学

出　　处：《中国人民大学学报》2018年第1期106-116,共11页Journal of Renmin University of China

基　　金：国家社会科学基金项目“劳动基准法律问题研究”(11AFX009);首都经济贸易大学重大科研项目与成果培育计划项目成果

摘　　要：对于劳动合同形式,我国采用形式强制立法模式。该模式是在计划经济向市场经济转变的历史背景下为"增强企业活力"而确立的,时至今日,其所承载的功能以及运行的社会环境都发生了重大变革。我国的书面劳动合同制度是对形式自由的管制,有违比例原则,且制度层面将证据效力作为书面劳动合同的制度目的也欠缺逻辑的合理性。《劳动合同法》延续了形式强制的立法模式,导致其内在的价值和制度冲突。欧盟国家与我国相反,以形式自由为基本原则,以劳动合同期限为中心设计合同形式。随着社会主义市场经济体制的确立,我国可借鉴欧盟国家的经验,削弱对劳动力市场的过度管制,确立形式自由原则,理顺形式与期限、解雇保护三者间的逻辑关系,以完善劳动合同形式制度。China has adopted mandatory form of employment contract to enhance the enterprise vi- tality under the background of transition from planned economy to market economy, but the func- tions of the mandatory form system and the environment in which it operates have witnessed tre- mendous changes. Employment contract in written form is a regulatory measure to freedom of form, and it violates the principle of proportionality. It is logically irrational that China makes the effect of evidence as the purpose of the written employment contract system. Employment Contract Law continues the mandatory form, which causes conflicts between its interior values and the insti- tution. On the contrary, European Union and its member states construct the contract form in ac- cordance with the duration system, taking freedom of the form as the principle. With the establish- ment of socialist economic market, China shall eliminate its excessive regulation on labor market, optimize contract form system by building freedom of contract principle and rationalizing the sys- tematic relationships among form, duration and discharge protection.

关 键 词：劳动合同 形式强制 形式自由 证据效力 

分 类 号：D922.52[政治法律—民商法学]