- UID
- 192805
- 热情
- 4869
- 人气
- 6393
- 主题
- 14
- 帖子
- 6271
- 精华
- 2
- 积分
- 8813
- 分享
- 0
- 记录
- 0
- 相册
- 0
- 好友
- 0
- 日志
- 0
- 在线时间
- 3589 小时
- 注册时间
- 2009-7-22
- 阅读权限
- 30
- 最后登录
- 2022-6-18
升级 76.26% - UID
- 192805
- 热情
- 4869
- 人气
- 6393
- 主题
- 14
- 帖子
- 6271
- 精华
- 2
- 积分
- 8813
- 阅读权限
- 30
- 注册时间
- 2009-7-22
|
本帖最后由 AMICUS_LAW 于 2012-3-20 23:30 编辑
路过,简单看了一下你的问题,给您一些建议:
1. 一般客户和老板之间因为员工造成的损失因由公司赔偿,在法律上我们称之为vicarious liability.
2. 老板和员工之间的矛盾如,是否员工应该补偿公司赔偿客户的金额非雇佣关系,而取决于law of contract / tort of negligence, 就是说,员工是否有粗心大意造成损失,双方之间的雇佣合同是否有相关赔偿的条款?虽然赔偿和雇佣法无关,但是如果老板因为赔偿的事件来定义serious misconduct 或者作出不公正的调查,随之解雇员工,这个可以通过雇佣关系来解决,i.e. DOL, Mediation, ERA, etc.
3. LZ的事件我认为LZ责任比较少或者说没有责任。因为payroll 的工作一般一个人做,需要另外一个人(your senior) double check 之后才能execute, 在一个小时内做40个人的payroll 而且没有高级会计师的检查就直接转账? 在案例法上对这类的情况法官多次做出评论。例如,in Angel v Fonterra Co-operative Group [2006] ERNZ 1080, Judge Shaw held, "where employee's failure to take proper care due to lack of knowledge of relevant policies or rules, fair and reasonable employer must establish whether this situation is employee's fault; training A and H received non-specific and rushed; other senior operators appeared unaware that A and H's actions considered serious breach of procedure; training received did not match intended policy and had been misunderstood by recipients; open to fair and reasonable employer to find that A and H may have been careless but not wilfully blind to policy; inadequacy of training procedures not considered.............." 就是说,你的老板在决定是否让你赔偿前,先评估你是否有错,而错误是否是因为公司的程序,培训,时间(Rushed job?) 而造成的过失,如果问题是系统化的不足所造成的,你主动道歉反而不能避免之后类似事件的发生,只会让你变成替罪羊而已。
同时,In Utumapu v W Crighton & Son Ltd CRN30090213/93
Judge Holderness mentioned and I quote, "I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the Defendant [Employer] failed to take all practicable steps to ensure that Mr Miller [Employee] was adequately trained because, as Mr Miller's attendance at a forklift operators course shortly after the accident makes clear, training courses were available for forklift operators and the attendance of Mr Miller at such a course was a practicable step which the Defendant did not take until after the accident. Accordingly, there was at least one practicable step which the Defendant failed to take and that being so, all practicable steps had not been taken." 这个案例指出如果至少有一个practicable step 雇主可以做而且可以避免事故的话,那么雇主就有责任去制定这样的step, 虽然这个案子是说forklift course, in analogy, it can also be applicable in cases of professional duties. 特别是你的工作如果是会计行,对员工training 还有做payroll 的输入和转帐之间的安全性没有任何的监督,例如separation of duty 的机制,让人觉得不是很professional 的感觉。
我认为LZ可以拒绝赔偿,而且要求公司检讨自己的policy 或者工作监督质量体系。因为之前做过会计师,对在payroll 中所出现这类的问题其实很常见的,而不是说只有LZ才会犯这样的错误。会计行需要有检查的mechanism, 就像我们律师clerk / junior lawyer 起草的信件一定需要senior lawyer review 过后才能签名发出一样的道理。 |
|
在艾美斯律师事务所,我们会为客户利益一争到底,敢于挑战司法的不公正。无论案件轻重,事无大小,意在执着,提供电话咨询。我们办理的案件领域包括房地产生意买卖,信托基金,各类移民案件,家庭法,刑事出庭,交通法,商业纠纷,法律意见,债务,公司法,合同,民事纠纷,小额度争议案件,谈判等各类法律服务。
办公室: 09-969 1493 传真: 09-969 1492
法律事务:苏小姐 021-08956107
电邮:info@adventark.co.nz 微信:AdventArkLawyers
地址: Level 6, 300 Queen Street, Auckland City.
|