無理解僱 的英文怎麼說

中文拼音 [wúlǐjiěgù]
無理解僱 英文
unjustifiable dismissal
  • 無 : 無Ⅰ動詞（沒有） not have; there is not; be without Ⅱ名詞1 （沒有） nothing; nil 2 （姓氏） a surn...
  • 理 : Ⅰ名詞1 （物質組織的條紋） texture; grain （in wood skin etc ） 2 （道理;事理） reason; logic; tru...
  • 解 : 解動詞（解送） send under guard
  • 無理 : unreasonable; unjustifiable
  • 解僱 : dismiss; fire; give the sack; layoff; discharge; relieve sb. of his post; cashier; cast
  1. The defendant, admart ezone limited, employed and paid salary to the employee during the period from may 16, 2000 to september 30, 2000. however, the defendant failed, without reasonable excuse, to give an advance notice of one month to the cir regarding the employee s cessation of employment as required under section 52 ( 5 ) of the inland revenue ordinance ( iro )

    被告admartezoneltd .在二年五月十六日至二年九月三十日期間僱用及支付薪金予一名雇員，並在無合理辯解情況下未有遵照《稅務條例》第52條第（ 5 ）款的規定，預先於一個月前將該雇員停止受雇一事通知稅務局局長。
  2. The defendant, admart ezone limited, employed and paid salary to the employee during the period from may 16, 2000 to september 30, 2000. however, the defendant failed, without reasonable excuse, to give an advance notice of one month to the cir regarding the employee s cessation of employment as required under section 52 of the inland revenue ordinance

    被告a d m a r t e z o n e l t d .在二年五月十六日至二年九月三十日期間僱用及支付薪金予一名雇員，並在無合理辯解情況下未有遵照稅務條例第52條第5款的規定，預先於一個月前將該雇員停止受雇一事通知稅務局局長。
  3. The defendant, camina collections limited, a carpet - trading company, was charged for making 3 incorrect employer s returns for the years of assessment 199495, 199596 and 199798, by omitting returns ( i. r. form 56b ) in respect of all its 3 salaried directors for the first - mentioned 2 years and in respect of 2 salaried directors for the last - mentioned year, contrary to section 80 ( 2 ) ( a ) of the inland revenue ordinance

    被告嘉明集團有限公司，在本港從事地氈貿易，被控在無合理辯解的情況下，就199495 、 199596和199798課稅年度填報三份不正確的僱主報稅表，觸犯《稅務條例》第80 （ 2 ） （ a ）條。控罪指稱被告漏報全部3名受薪董事在199495及199596年度的僱主填報雇員入息表格（ i
  4. 14 dt : i must say, amy, that over the last. . period of weeks, long, hard weeks, you did the best in terms of action. but today, it has fallen down. amy, all of my executives said. . that there ' s little substance behind your words. the fact of the matter is, people in my organization. . have to be inspired by you before you can earn their respect. it ' s going to be tough to bring you into the fold. . without that respect, and it ' s a tough decision. but, amy, i have to fire you

    我必須說，艾米，在過去的這幾周里. . .漫長艱難的任務. . .從你表現來看你的表現最佳.但是今天，你失敗了.艾米，我的全部經理都說. . .你的談吐空洞無物.事實是，在你能贏得他們尊敬之前，我公司的人都得先受到你的鼓舞.失去那種尊敬，導致你失敗是很殘酷的事.這是個很艱難的決定.但是，艾米，我不得不解僱你
  5. She sued her employer for unfair dismissal

    她控告僱主無理解僱工人。
  6. He was booted out without any reason by the white boss

    他被白人老闆毫無理由地解僱了。
  7. But because the legal person is a social organization composed of staff member in different posts ( including legal person organ, manager, employee, agent and subcontractor, etc. ), and has consistent management system, which complicates the settlement of the damages caused by its torts. so the first triggering questions are as follows : what kind of damages and whose tort should be assumed by which way by the legal person, and then what is the character of the liability

    本文認為，僱主責任屬于替代責任的范疇，不能作為法人對無法歸咎于個人行為的侵權損害承擔責任的理論基礎，該制度中法人因對其雇員已盡注意義務和監督義務而免責的規定也不具有現實意義，所以我國未來民法典應賦予法人以侵權行為能力，它解決的問題涵蓋法人對其機關及其他工作人員因執行職務而致他人損害的責任承擔。
  8. Employers, who without reasonable excuse, fail to observe the above obligations may be liable to prosecution

    罰則任何僱主無合理辯解而不遵照上述規定，本局可對其提出檢控。
  9. The defendant, leo burnett limited, employed and paid salary to the employee during the period from november 22, 1999 to may 19, 2000. however, the defendant failed, without reasonable excuse, to give an advance notice of one month to the cir regarding the employee s cessation of employment as required under section 52 of the inland revenue ordinance

    被告李奧貝納廣告有限公司，在一九九九年十一月二十二日至二年五月十九日期間僱用及支付薪金予一名雇員，並在無合理辯解情況下未有遵照稅務條例第52條第5款的規定，預先於一個月前將該雇員停止受雇一事通知稅務局局長。
  10. The defendant, leo burnett limited, employed and paid salary to the employee during the period from november 22, 1999 to may 19, 2000. however, the defendant failed, without reasonable excuse, to give an advance notice of one month to the cir regarding the employee s cessation of employment as required under section 52 ( 5 ) of the inland revenue ordinance ( iro )

    被告李奧貝納廣告有限公司，在一九九九年十一月二十二日至二年五月十九日期間僱用及支付薪金予一名雇員，並在無合理辯解情況下未有遵照《稅務條例》第52條第（ 5 ）款的規定，預先於一個月前將該雇員停止受雇一事通知稅務局局長。
  11. Regarding the current cases, stuart taylor, a writer on legal affairs for the non - partisan national journal, argues that it is reasonable for a president to dismiss a prosecutor over policy ( for example, if the white house favours the death penalty and a prosecutor never seeks it ), but not for partisan reasons

    考慮到眼下是多事之秋，斯圖爾特?泰勒? ?為無黨派偏見的《國家雜志》撰寫法律方面文章的作者? ?認為，總統因政策原因解僱檢察官，還在情理之中（例如，如果白宮贊成死刑，而某檢察官卻從不追隨） ；但是，若因黨派緣由，則沒有道理了。
  12. The defendant, camina collections limited, a carpet - trading company, was charged for making 3 incorrect employer s returns for the years of assessment 1994 95, 1995 96 and 1997 98, by omitting returns i. r

    被告嘉明集團有限公司，在本港從事地氈貿易，被控在無合理辯解的情況下，就1994 95 1995 96和1997 98課稅年度填報三份不正確的僱主報稅表，觸犯稅務條例第80 2 a條。
分享友人
分享到 Line

分享到臉書