In the class, the bear student counselor was dismissed.

category:Global
 In the class, the bear student counselor was dismissed.


In September 2015, Guo applied for the technical school as a counselor and signed a labor contract for three years with the school. After entering the office, Guo participated in pre school training organized by the school and obtained the certificate of completion. In the same year, Guo received the honorary title of excellent class teacher. By the end of November 2016, 3 students had been stealing motorcycles in a class managed by Guo, and the amount involved was as high as several hundred thousand yuan. After that, the school carried out a re training and adjustment to Guo. In early April 2017, another class of students managed by kuomo caused a dormitory fire because of illegal use of electrical appliances and smoking. After the above incident, the school responsible person immediately criticized and educated Guo. In July 4, 2017, the school thought Kuo was not competent for the job and informed Guo to terminate the labor contract in August 2, 2017. Guo refused to accept the case and filed an arbitration with the local labor and personnel dispute arbitration committee, demanding the resumption of labor relations. At the time of arbitration, the school still paid the salary for Guo, and Guo failed to confirm that the two parties had terminated the labor contract in August 2, 2017, so the Arbitration Commission rejected Guos arbitration request, and Guo Mousui appealed to the court. At the end of November 2016 and early April 2017, the school is responsible for the occurrence of illegal and illegal events in the class managed by Guo, all of which occurred during the study and life of the students in the school and under the management education of Guo. The school believes that as a tutor, Guo is not responsible for teaching and educating people. There is a lack of legal education and ideological and moral education for students. It can not guide students to set up the correct three views of life and do not have the most basic teachers quality. Therefore, it is legitimate and reasonable to remove the relationship between the school and Guos labor contract. The hearing of the first instance court held that the school decided that Guo was not competent, but the evidence submitted to the court was insufficient, so he supported Guos petition and decided that the school would continue to perform the labor contract. The school appealed. Recently, the Jinan middle court held that Guo, as a school counselor, participated in the pre job training of the staff and obtained the certificate of employment. It should be regarded as a knowledge of the duties of the counselors and the rules and regulations of the college and would be willing to abide by it. The class students managed by Guo Mou repeatedly appeared in violation of the law and the regulations of the school, and confirmed that Guo did not meet the requirements of the school in education, but the school announced on July 4, 2017 that Guo was relieved of the labor contract on the 2 day of a month. It did not conform to the legal provisions of the employer to notify the worker in written form 30 days earlier. Therefore, the school unilaterally lifted the labor contract with Kuo in August 2nd, which is illegal. Then the appeal was rejected and the original judgment was maintained. Source: workers daily editor: Xu Meng _NN7485 The hearing of the first instance court held that the school decided that Guo was not competent, but the evidence submitted to the court was insufficient, so he supported Guos petition and decided that the school would continue to perform the labor contract. The school appealed. Recently, the Jinan middle court held that Guo, as a school counselor, participated in the pre job training of the staff and obtained the certificate of employment. It should be regarded as a knowledge of the duties of the counselors and the rules and regulations of the college and would be willing to abide by it. The class students managed by Guo Mou repeatedly appeared in violation of the law and the regulations of the school, and confirmed that Guo did not meet the requirements of the school in education, but the school announced on July 4, 2017 that Guo was relieved of the labor contract on the 2 day of a month. It did not conform to the legal provisions of the employer to notify the worker in written form 30 days earlier. Therefore, the school unilaterally lifted the labor contract with Kuo in August 2nd, which is illegal. Then the appeal was rejected and the original judgment was maintained.