[摘要] 劳务派遣工最初的出发点是对公司临时、替代和辅助性岗位缺位人员进行的补充,但随着市场的发展和公司受利益的驱使,现今劳务派遣用工人数呈现上升趋势,且人员流动性大,但管理却呈现自然化,职务犯罪呈现高发态势,为此,笔者结合办案进行了初步探讨,冀能为大家提供思考。

　　关健词 劳务派遣工 职务犯罪分析 预防建议


　　一、相关案例

　　[案例一] 刘某是南宁意林酒店管理有限公司派遣到广西电网公司桂林培训中心工作的工作人员,2009年10月1日起,在培训中心任车班班长。经象山区人民检察院反贪污贿赂局侦查,2012年6月份,刘某先后两次将培训中心的一辆号牌桂CGP978普瑞维亚商务车和一辆号牌桂CGP589丰田皇冠小轿车通过中介人李树其代办手续私自过户到自己名下,尔后,其将这两辆车分别卖给安泰二手汽车买卖店老板李镇华和柳州个体经营户老板张超胜等人,获得赃款人民币共计61万元,经桂林市价格认证中心鉴定普瑞维亚商务车价值人民币505535元,丰田皇冠小轿车价值人民币379182元,涉案总价值人民币884717元,2012年12月21日,象山区人民法院以贪污罪判取刘某有期徒刑11年,剥夺政治权利1年。

　　[案例二] 蒋某是由广西嘉路人力资源顾问有限责任公司派遣到广西民航产业发展有限公司桂林航空物流分公司的工作人员。象山区人民检察院反贪污贿赂局侦查得知,2012年4月26日3时40分许,蒋某利用在广西民航产业发展有限公司桂林航空物流分公司货运仓库内值班的机会,将深圳邮政速递物流公司通过CZ3951航班发往桂林机场的5574#邮件总包(内有七件邮政特快专递邮件),用助力车载回其位于桂林市象山区安新南路3号25栋1单元601室的家中占为已有,并将其中一件号码为ET387005660CS的邮件(内有黄金戒指66个、黄金吊坠12个、黄金项链26条,共计价值人民币222085.20元)藏匿于书房玩具柜内,其余六件邮件扔入漓江。

　　二、劳务派遣工职务犯罪主、客观原因分析

　　劳务派遣工最初的出发点是对公司临时、替代和辅助性岗位缺位人员进行的补充,比例不能超过公司总人数的10%,但随着市场的发展和公司受利益的驱使,现今劳务派遣用工人数呈现上升趋势,人员流动性大,管理呈现自然化。

　　(一)用人单位劳务派遣工比例过大,给单位的教育、管理增加了难度。在调查广西民航产业发展有限公司桂林航空物流分公司、广西电网公司桂林培训中心时,都存在用人超比例现象。比如桂林航空物流分公司,在全公司200人中,劳务派遣工占了135人,占总人数的67.5%。而广西电网公司桂林培训中心536人中,正式员工只有80人,不到15%。用人单位的劳务派遣工比例远远超出10%的上限。用工单位存在“重用轻管”的思想,这是案发的客观原因之一。

　　(二)单位对劳务派遣工在用工、培训方面存在制度弊端,没有营造良好的用人、留人环境。劳务派遣工的“临时工”意识,是案发的重要原因。从用人单位调研的情况来看,劳务派遣人员从招聘到解除劳动合同,没有轮岗、没有晋升、没有留用进正式员工编制。造成大多数员工的主人翁意识不强。民航产业发展有限公司桂林航空物流分公司等的劳务派遣工,有的在单位只工作1-2年,多的5-8年,没有长期工作的思想和环境,劳务派遣人员流动性大。案发前,单位对劳务派遣工没有系统地教育、培训、晋升规划,除2人任命为短期管理干部外,其他人员都没有晋升的机会,人员也没有岗位轮换,更没有在职技术培训。在广西电网公司桂林培训中心工作的456名劳务派遣人员中,没有一人能有机会到机关工作,清一色地为被管理者。这些劳务派遣人员自身感到被边缘化,因此有些人就不注重单位形象、不注重维护单位整体利益,一味追求自身经济利益最大化,于单位的规章制度不顾,常常违规违纪,没有当家做主的主人翁意识,有些更是以身涉法,导致案发。

　　(三)单位对劳务派遣工的用工保障方面存在制度上的缺陷,同工不同酬,造成员工间经济利益的不平等,亦是案发的诱因之一。从桂林航空物流分公司的调研情况来看,劳务派遣人员在住房公积金方面就不能享有其他员工同等待遇,无论工作多少年,单位都不缴纳住房公积金。另外,劳务派遣人员的工作岗位主要从事运输、检测、搬运等工种,工资标准虽然是统一的,但在制定工资方案时存在不公平现象,订的偏低,而且是按量计酬,工作时段也不能确定,有些工种需要年轻力壮的劳动力,随着年龄的增长,就不适合继续在那个岗位工作,由于制度的原因,难以继续与用人单位签订劳动合同。广西电网公司桂林培训中心虽然在制度保障方面是平等的,但在晋升方面没有跟上。劳务派遣工在用人单位存在工作岗位不平等、工资待遇不平等、工作时间不平等现象,造成劳务派遣工与正式员工间的经济差异,为了取得心理上的平衡,个别劳务派遣工利用工作上的便利,捞取“财、物”等“好处”,导致发案。

　　(四)管理与监督制度不完善、不落实,不能坚持用制度管人、管事、管物是案发的主要原因。在民航产业发展有限公司桂林航空物流分公司调查中发现存在以下问题:一是没有完善与劳务派遣工工作相适应的管理部门。从调查的情况来看,除了工作场所有相应的跟班“干部”外,没有相应的行政管理;二是工作管理没有实行岗位责任制和小组负责制,每班只设一名干部跟班,也没有制定完善的作业、管理配套措施,由于劳务派遣工都在一线分散工作,管理措施也难以落实到位。没有建立岗位负责与小组监督机制、没有建立小组(或部门)相互制约机制、没有落实相应的检查监督机制。在整个劳务派遣工的用工、管理、教育等环节没有形成分级管理、分级指导、分级检查监督;三是仓储管理、登记、跟踪检查制度不规范。一方面,对货物统计不规范,桂林航空物流分公司在案发后二十多天,也未知丢失包裹的情况,原因是公司间货运交接以重量计算,交接单上记录的数字为重量而非包裹总数,对于重量轻、价值高的物品难以及时发现丢失现象。另一方面,仓储管理员交接班制度落实不到位。对于物质的清点没有按制度落实到位,对于双人交接班制度更是形同虚设,蒋某案的发生,就是在支走交接班人员后得手的,而接班人员也没有仔细检查物品,对于损坏物件没有清点。在对广西电网公司桂林培训中心调查中发现,车辆出入登记制度形同摆设,办公室人员一方面不严格实行登记管理与出、入库管理制度,另一方面也没有对车辆进行跟踪检查、清点,在车辆不入库多日的情况下,没有发现任何问题,也没有进行询问,导致刘某连续作案的发生。调查还发现,在此案发前,该公司2011年至2012年上半年,发生了王艾华、王继勇、谢毳森、聂连宏、韦祖桂、王启旭、文凌进、姚和生、梁仕明等劳务派遣人员多次在飞机货舱转运、装卸旅客行李过程中盗窃旅客行李中现金的案件。

　　(五)教育管理与劳务派遣人员的教育程度、工作环境、家庭生活脱节。调查中了解到,思想教育与法制宣传在桂林航空物流分公司、广西电网公司桂林培训中心都得到了体现,但是宣传教育的形式、内容与员工的工作、生活、家庭衔接存在制度上的缺陷。一是没有把法制宣传与工作中预防职务犯罪有效结合起来,制定和完善重点防控机制。二是对员工的思想教育没有与其教育程度、工作环境、家庭生活很好地相结合,没有发现和防范重点防控环节、重点防控人员。三是针对性不够强。劳务派遣人员的文化程度、学历都不高,在调查中发现,桂林航空物流分公司、广西电网我公司桂林培训中心劳务派遣人员初高中毕业文化程度占了90%,不同的工作环境、不同的文化程度、不同的家庭生活经历造就了不同的性格,如桂林航空物流分公司的蒋某生活在单亲家庭中,长期与母亲不合,养成孤僻、内向的性格,加上单位文化活动少,缺少家庭温暖与同事、领导关爱、支持,为谈女朋友筹措资金不惜挺而走险。而广西电网公司桂林培训中心的刘某,表面上同事关系好,出手大方,实际上由于交友不慎,借钱赌博,明知变卖单位车辆构成犯罪依然连续作案。

　　三、防范劳务派遣人员职务犯罪的对策与建议

　　(一)建立和完善劳务派遣人员用人、留人保障制度。一是营造良好的用人、留人环境,关爱、关心劳务派遣人员,从就餐、住宿、工休等方面享有其他正式员工待遇。二是建立轮岗制度,单位从招聘人员开始,就要充分考虑人员实行轮岗,不能一岗到底,招人顶岗。三是实行劳务人员工作考核机制,对于工作能力强,表现积极的要有计划的实行培训,进入正式编制、进入干部管理队伍、进入相对较好的机关工作环境,不断激励员工奋发上进。

　　(二)确实建立和完善同工、同时、同酬制度。一是在工资待遇方面公平、合理,不能实行工资“双轨制”或变相“双轨制”,切实改进劳务派遣人员工资标准过低的现象,把劳务派遣人员当作“自家人”。二是劳务派遣人员的“五险一金”要按公司和国家规定统一标准落实,解决低人一等的“临时工”意识。三是针对劳务派遣人员的工作岗位主要从事运输、检测、搬运等工种等特点,规范制定工资标准,合理安排工作时段,切实保障劳务派遣人员的正常休息时间。

　　(三)坚持用制度管人、管事、管物,强化管理与监督机制。一是要根据劳务派遣人员从事工种特点,合理设立科室,落实班、组,强化行政管理机制。二是对重点岗位、重点环节科学地实施小组(部门)间相互监督、相互制约,防止失控、防止一人或一个小组职务犯罪。三是要严格各种管理与登记、跟踪检查监督制度。切实改进桂林物流分公司交、接班制度,以及对货物仓储登、统计不规范现象,切实改进广西电网公司桂林培训中心车辆出入登记、检查制度。对单位进行一次安全防控大检查,建立和完善相应的管控机制。

　　(四)建立和完善有针对性的劳务派遣人员教育管理机制。一是继续强化法制宣传,针对劳务派遣人员受教育程度、工作环境、家庭生活的特点,制定相应的法制宣传方案与教育管理机制。二是要加强思想沟通,公司或中心领导要主动与员工进行对话,建立和完善劳务派遣人员对话、座谈机制,建立正常的沟通渠道,用制度保障对话渠道的落实。三是建立单位劳务派遣人员信息档案,全面掌握其家庭、生活、工作情况,有针对性开展思想政治教育,全面掌握重点人员、重点时间、重点部位的动态情况,必要时进行个别走访,有效防范各种职务犯罪的发生。

　　（作者单位:广西桂林市象山区人民检察院）
Reviews on the principle of effective nationality

孙倩
I. Introduction
In a world of ever-increasing transnational interaction, the importance of individual protection during the processes concurrently increases. Nationality is the principal link between individuals and states but also is the bridge connecting individuals with international law. It is just through the linkage of nationality can a person enjoy diplomatic protection by his parent state. But due to double nationality, there are lots of difficulties to effective diplomatic protection of individuals. The principle of effective nationality was formed through the judicial practice of international court of justice. What is the meaning of the principle of effective nationality? Is it a perfect theory in the face of diplomatic protection of dual national? In this article, the author will introduce the concept of this principle and give her opinions on it.
II: The concept of principle of effective nationality
Nationality of an individual is his quality of being a subject of a certain state. Nationality is of critical importance to individuals, especially with regard to individuals abroad or their property. Firstly, it is the main link between individual and a state. It is evidence that one can be protected by his parent state.
Secondly, to some extent, individuals are not the subjects of international law, so they cannot directly enjoy the rights and undertake responsibilities coming from international law. It is through the medium of their nationality that individuals can normally enjoy benefits from international law.
In principle, nationality as a term of local or municipal law is usually determined by the law of particular state. Each state has discretion of determining who is and who is not, to be considered its nationals. However, there is no generally binding rules concerning acquisition and loss of nationality, and as the laws of different states differ in many points relating to this matter, so it is beyond surprising that an individual may process more than one nationality as easily as none at all. But whether each granted nationality owned by these dual nationals has international effects is in doubt. In another word, the determination by each state of the grant of its own nationality is not necessarily to be accepted internationally without question. Especially, when a dual national seeks diplomatic protection in some third state, that state is not answerable to both of states of his nationality but only one of them. In this situation, the third state is entitled to judge which nationality should be recognized.
As stated in Art1 of the Hague Convention of 1930 on certain questions relating to the conflict of nationality laws, while it is for each state to determine under its own law who are its nationals, such law must be recognized by other states only “in so far as it is consistent with international conventions, international custom, and the principle of law generally recognized with regard to nationality”. In the “Nottebohm” case, the International Court of Justice regard nationality as: ‘a legal bond having as its basis a social fact of attachment, a genuine connection of existence and sentiments, together with the existence of reciprocal rights and duties. It may be upon whom it is conferred, either directly by the law or as a result of an act of the authorities, is in fact more closely connected with the population of the state conferring nationality than with that of any other state’ That is what is called the real and effective nationality. Deriving from the court’s opinion, the principle of effective nationality came into being. The essential parts of effective and real nationality are that which accorded with the facts, which based on stronger factual ties between the person concerned and one of the states whose nationality is involved. Different factors are taken into consideration, and their importance will vary from one case to the next: the habitual residence of the individual concerned is an important factor, but there are other factors such as the centre of his interests, his families, his participation in public life, attachment shown by him for a given country and inculcated in his children, etc. According to this principle, no state is under obligation to recognize a nationality granted not meeting the requirements of it. In the Nottebohm case, International Court of Justice first enunciated this principle and denied Liechtenstein the right to protect Nottebohm.
III． Nottebohm case and reviews on the principle of effective nationality
In the Nottebohm case, involving Liechtenstein and Guatemala, the former sought restitution and compensation on behalf of Nottebohm for the latter’s actions allegedly in violation of international law.
Nottebohm, a German national resident in Guatemala, had large business interest there and in Germany. He also had a brother in Liechtenstein, whom he occasionally visited. While still a German national, Nottebohm applied for naturalization in Liechtenstein on October 9, 1939, shortly after the German invasion of Poland. Relieved of the three-year residence requirements, Nottebohm paid his fees and taxes to Liechtenstein and became a naturalized citizen of Liechtenstein by taking an oath of allegiance on October 20,1939, thereby forfeiting his German nationality under the nationality law of Liechtenstein. He returned to Liechtenstein early in 1949 on a Liechtenstein passport to resume his business activities. At his request, the Guatemalan ministry of External Affairs changed the Nottebohm entry in its Register of Aliens from “German” to “Liechtenstein” national. Shortly afterward a state of war came into existence between the USA and Germany and between Guatemala and Germany. Arrested in Guatemala in 1943, Nottebohm has deported to the USA, where he was interned as an enemy alien until 1946. Upon his release, Nottebohm applied for readmission to Guatemala but was refused; therefore, he took up residence in Liechtenstein. Meanwhile, the Guatemalan government, after classifying him as an enemy alien, expropriated his extensive properties without compensation.
Liechtenstein instituted proceedings against Guatemala in International Court of Justice, asking the court to declare that Guatemala had violated international law “in arresting, detaining, expelling and refusing to readmit Mr. Nottebohm and in seizing and retaining his property”. The court rejected the Liechtenstein claim by a vote of 11 to 3, declaring that Nottebohm’s naturalization could not be accorded international recognition because there was no sufficient “bond of attachment” between Nottebohm and Liechtenstein.
The Nottebohm decision denied the competence of Liechtenstein to protect a naturalized citizen and the loss of Nottebohm could not be remedied. The application of the “genuine link” theory, borrowed from the very different context of dual nationality problems, has the unfortunate effect of depriving an individual of a hearing on the merits and the protection by a state willing to espouse his claim in the transnational arena. The net effect is an immense loss of protection of human rights for individuals. Such a decision runs counter to contemporary community expectations emphasizing the increased protection of human rights for individuals. If the right of protection is abolished, it becomes impossible to consider the merits of certain claims alleging a violation of the rules of international law. If no other state is in a position to exercise diplomatic protection, as in the present case, claims put forward on behalf of an individual, whose nationality is disputed or held to be inoperative on the international level and who enjoys no other nationality, would have to be abandoned. The protection of the individual which is so precarious under the international law would be weakened even further and the author consider that this would be contrary to the basic principle embodied in Article15 (2) of the Universal Declaration of Human Right. As a matter of human rights, every person should be free to change his nationality. Thus the Universal Declaration of Human Right states that ‘everyone has the right to a nationality’ (Art.15 (1)).The right to a nationality can be interpreted as a positive formulation of the duty to avoid statelessness. The duty to avoid statelessness is laid down in various international instruments, in particular in the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness. The term statelessness refers to the “de iure stateless persons” rather than “de-facto stateless persons”. If it is a free choice and if this nationality is to be a benefit rather than a burden to the individual, it should follow that he has the right to renounce one nationality on acquiring a new one. Furthermore, refusal to exercise protection is not accordance with the frequent attempts made at the present time to prevent the increase in the number of cases of stateless persons and provide protection against acts violating the fundamental human rights recognized by international law as a minimum standard, without distinction as to nationality, religion or race. It is unfortunately not the case. While the Nottebohm decision denied the competence of Liechtenstein to protect a naturalized citizen, the Flegenheimer case involved the denial of protection to a national by birth, when and where will the principle of effective nationality be used? This is a question that needs to be thought over. From the standpoint of human rights protection, the application of this principle should be strictly limited.
VI. Conclusion
Nationality is within the domestic jurisdiction of the State, which settles, by its own legislation, the rules relating to the acquisition of its nationality. It is sometimes asserted that there must be a genuine and effective link between an individual and a state in order to establish a nationality which must be accepted by other states. It is doubtful, however, whether the genuine and effective link requirement, used by the International Court of Justice in the Nottebohm-Case in order to deny Liechtenstein’s claim to exercise protection, can be considered as a relevant element for international recognition of nationality or as a requirement of a valid naturalization under public international law. It is frequently argued that in the absence of any recognized criteria the attribution of nationality must be considered as arbitrary and that there must be some kind of a personal and territorial link. The rule, however, although maintained in state practice, has been gradually diminished in its importance due to one exception, which concerning the raising of claims in case of human rights protection, especially to dual nationals who suffers injury in the third state and cannot be protected by his origin nationality state.

References
1, Bauer, O. (2001, first published in 1907). The Question of Nationalities and Social Democracy. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
2, ICJRep , 1995, P4, atP23
3, SIR ROBERT JENNINGS & SIR ARTHUR WATTS Oppenheim’s International Law, Longman Group UK LIMITED AND Mrs.Tomokohudso, 1992