1. Resignation without behavioral capacity is invalid
(1) Case introduction
Employee Li entered a leather shoe factory in August 1985. 2. Later in the year, he became mentally ill due to a broken relationship. He was diagnosed with schizophrenia by the local psychiatric hospital and was hospitalized. He often took sick leave in the future. In September 1995, Li applied for resignation on the grounds that he wanted to transfer to a new unit. In the "Family Opinion" column of the "Employee Resignation Application Approval Opinion Form" produced by the unit, Li's father wrote the word "agree" and signed it. The leather shoe factory subsequently agreed to Li's resignation and completed the relevant exit procedures. Later, because Li's condition became known to his new employer, he was not hired. Li's father asked the leather shoe factory to still take back Li, but was refused. Li's father filed for arbitration with the local labor dispute arbitration committee on Li's behalf.
(2) Arbitration Situation
After accepting the case, the Labor Dispute Arbitration Committee suspended the hearing and recommended that the parties conduct a capacity appraisal. Li's father applied to the People's Court to declare Li a person without capacity. After accepting the application, the People's Court conducted an appraisal of Li and made a ruling after multiple investigations: Li was a completely incompetent person and designated Li's father as his guardian. Subsequently, labor dispute arbitration was resumed.
During the arbitration, Li’s father believed that Li was a mental patient and had no capacity to act, and his actions were invalid. According to the legal provisions, invalid civil acts are not legally binding from the beginning of the act. Therefore, when the unit cannot recognize his own behavior, the decision made by the unit to agree to his resignation should be deemed invalid.
The leather shoe factory believes that Li’s behavior was committed when he was conscious and that there were units willing to accept him at that time, indicating that he was capable of acting; Li’s condition worsened after he resigned. Incapacitated. Taking a step back, even if Li's resignation is invalid, his father has signed the resignation document to express his agreement. This act should be regarded as the guardian's acting act, and the resignation request is also valid. The employer agreed to his resignation application without any inappropriateness.
The arbitration committee was unable to reach an agreement after mediation and made a ruling: (1) Li’s resignation application was invalid, and the leather shoe factory should restore the labor relationship with Li; (2) The salary before resignation was as follows: Sick leave processing.
(3) Comments
There are two points of dispute in this case: Is Li’s resignation application valid? Should Li's father's "agreement to resign" be regarded as an act of agency?
Is Li’s resignation application valid? The key depends on whether Li has the qualifications to undertake civil conduct when he resigns. Other units expressed their willingness to accept without understanding the situation, but once they understood the situation, they rejected it, which shows that the leather shoe factory's argument that "having units willing to accept proves that Li has the capacity to act" is inappropriate. In this case, it can only be based on the court’s determination. Based on the medical history, the court confirmed that Li's schizophrenia began in August 1987. Li's resignation was actually made in a state of lack of rationality and cannot be regarded as a reflection of Li's true will. Li's resignation application is invalid.
Should Li's father's "agreement to resign" be regarded as an act of agency? Agency behavior refers to a legal act in which an agent performs a legal action on a third party in the name of the principal, and the legal consequences are directly attributable to the principal. In this case, Li's father's "agreement to resign" was not an act of agency. When the agent performs agency acts, he must do so in the name of the principal; Li's father agreed in the name of his family members. Li's father's "agree" was written in the "Family Opinions" column in the "Employee Resignation Application Approval Opinion Form" produced by the unit. The behavior reflected in this column does not have any agency character. The purpose of setting up this column is to avoid disputes caused by family members who do not understand the situation. This column reflects the attitude of the family members towards the applicant's resignation. The attitude of the family members can be used as a reference by the employer when deciding whether to agree to the resignation application, but cannot replace the applicant's subjective will.
The Shanghai Municipal People's Government stipulated in the "Notice on the Approval and Transmission of Several Opinions of the Labor Bureau on the Comprehensive Implementation of the Labor Contract System in Enterprises in this Municipality by the End of 1995" that the fixed-employee system shall be transferred to the labor contract system. During the process of system transformation, enterprises should retain labor relations with workers who are incapacitated or have limited capacity. According to this spirit, the company should also retain the labor relationship with Li.
2. Liability for breach of contract must be handled in accordance with procedures
(1) Introduction to the case
Zhang, an employee of a machinery factory, received a three-year semi-full-time training , obtained a college degree, and the company reimbursed all training fees for him. The two parties also signed a "supplementary labor contract" in accordance with the company's rules and regulations. According to the contract, Zhang must serve the company for at least four years after the training. If the employee terminates the contract early, he will be compensated at the rate of 25% of the training fee for each year in advance. After completing the training and working for three years, Zhang submitted his resignation report to the company. The company required Zhang to pay compensation of 1,500 yuan as stipulated in the contract. Zhang proposed that the compensation be reduced to 500 yuan because the new work had not yet been implemented, but the company refused. One month after Zhang reported his resignation, he left the company after completing the handover procedures. Afterwards, Zhang repeatedly asked the company to go through the procedures for dismissal and withdrawal of work, but the company refused because the training fees were not compensated.
Four months after leaving the company, Zhang filed a complaint with the local labor dispute arbitration committee on the grounds that the employer failed to terminate the job in time. The machinery factory filed a counterclaim claiming that Zhang had breached the contract and demanded compensation.
(2) Arbitration Situation
During the arbitration, Zhang believed that: Article 31 of the Labor Law of the People’s Republic of China stipulates: "The employee terminates the labor contract , the employer should be notified in writing 30 days in advance. "Except for advance notice, this provision does not attach any other conditions. This is the right of resignation given to workers by the labor law; it has fulfilled its obligation to provide advance notice, and the enterprise has no reason." There will be no formalities for quitting work or withdrawing files. Because the company failed to go through the relevant procedures, it was unable to receive unemployment benefits or find a formal job within four months. The company should bear the liability for compensation.
The machinery factory believed that the company funded Zhang’s compensation training and agreed to serve for four years. Zhang’s early resignation was a breach of contract and he should be liable for compensation according to the contract. Zhang was not financially damaged when he left the company to engage in some temporary work; however, the company suffered immeasurable losses due to the loss of its business backbone. As for Zhang's inability to receive unemployment benefits and find a formal job for four months, it was due to his own breach of contract and his unwillingness to assume responsibilities according to the contract. He had to bear the consequences.
Under the auspices of the Labor Dispute Arbitration Committee, the two parties were unable to reach an agreement despite mediation. The arbitration committee made a ruling: (1) Since both parties have agreed not to maintain the labor relationship, the labor relationship is terminated; (2) The "Supplementary Labor Contract" signed by both parties is legal and valid, and Zhang should compensate the machinery factory 1,500 RMB in accordance with the contract. Yuan; (3) The labor relationship will be deemed to be retained before the machine factory quits the job or withdraws from the job. The machine factory will provide Zhang with 1,000 yuan for living expenses according to the treatment of the unemployed employees of the company, and pay relevant social insurance premiums in accordance with national regulations.
(3) Comments
This case is a labor dispute that occurred because the employee violated the relevant service period in the labor contract and terminated the labor contract. According to the "Measures for Compensation for Violations of Relevant Labor Contract Provisions of the Labor Law" issued by the Ministry of Labor in 1995, employers who have paid training fees for workers can require employees to bear corresponding responsibilities. Article 9 of the "Shanghai Labor Contract Regulations" issued by Order No. 18 of the Shanghai Municipal People's Government on November 23, 1995 stipulates: "Because the employer may fund training or allocate housing to employees, etc., it may stipulate in the labor contract or relevant agreement The rights and obligations of both parties are stipulated in the "Supplementary Labor Contract" signed by both parties in this case. Employees who breach the contract shall bear liability for breach of contract. If the employee refuses to bear compensation liability, the employer can, while handling the termination procedures of the labor contract in accordance with the law, initiate arbitration with the labor arbitration committee to safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of the enterprise.
However, in this case, the machinery factory adopted the wrong method of not canceling the work and withholding the files in an attempt to obtain compensation. Force Zhang to pay the relevant fees. This approach not only failed to achieve the expected results, but also violated relevant national regulations. According to the "Shanghai Municipal Unit Recruitment and Retirement Management Measures (Trial)" issued by the Shanghai Municipal Labor Bureau on March 13, 1995, after the employer terminates the labor relationship with the employee, it must go to the labor department where the unit is located within two weeks. The affiliated employment agency handles the withdrawal procedures. According to the "Regulations on the Management of Enterprise Employee Files" promulgated by the Ministry of Labor and the State Archives Administration on June 9, 1992, if an enterprise employee terminates his labor contract due to resignation, the employer shall transfer his files to his new work unit within one month. or the sub-district labor department of the place where his or her registered permanent residence is located. The company's failure to go through the formalities for dismissal and job transfer has caused losses to employees who are unable to receive unemployment benefits and participate in recruitment, and the company bears corresponding responsibilities. On the issue of how the company should bear responsibility, the arbitration committee handled the matter in a manner that preserved the labor relationship and required the company to provide employees with waiting benefits. This treatment is basically appropriate.
This is a dispute caused by an employee's breach of contract. Due to the wrong practices of the company, the unilateral fault was transformed into a mixed fault. This case illustrates that when an employer pursues an employee’s liability for breach of contract, it must follow legal procedures.
3. Although there are problems with sick leave, the contract period should be considered when terminating the contract
(1) Introduction to the case
Employee Li signed a contract with Jiaming Group Company in December 1993 After the one-year labor contract expired, the two parties renewed the contract for another three years in January 1994. In March of the same year, the employer discovered that Li had committed fraud during his 12-year sick leave in 1993, that is, he used an acquaintance to take sick leave to do business in Guangdong. The company decided to: (1) treat the 18 days of sick leave in December 1993 as absenteeism; (2) remove him from the company in accordance with the "Regulations on Reward and Punishment of Enterprise Employees". Li was dissatisfied and lodged a complaint with the Labor Dispute Arbitration Committee.
(2) Arbitration Situation
During the arbitration, the complainant Li believed that his mistake occurred in the previous contract period. He performed better during this contract period and hoped that the company would You can withdraw your delisting decision and give yourself a chance to make corrections.
The respondent, Jiaming Group, believed that it was handled in accordance with the provisions of the "Regulations on Reward and Punishment of Enterprise Employees" and was not inappropriate. Therefore, there was no issue of withdrawing the delisting decision.
The arbitration committee was unable to reach an agreement after mediation and made a ruling: (1) Li used his sick leave to do business and should be treated as absenteeism, and the company will deduct his sick leave wages as support; (2) Since absenteeism is It occurred in the previous contract period, and the contract period has been terminated, so the delisting decision of the enterprise shall be revoked.
(3) Comments
Absenteeism means that employees fail to complete leave procedures and do not come to work during working hours without legitimate reasons. In this case, employee Li used his sick leave to do business. This behavior was wrong, and his sick leave should be treated as absenteeism. According to the "Regulations on Rewards and Punishments for Enterprise Employees": "If an employee is frequently absent from work without justifiable reasons, if criticism and education are ineffective, and the continuous absence from work exceeds 15 days, or the cumulative absence from work exceeds 30 days within one year, the enterprise has the right to expel the employee." After being removed, the labor legal relationship shall be terminated. It can be seen that under normal circumstances, the company has the right to remove the employee from work for 15 consecutive days, but the situation in this case is quite special.
This case involves two interrelated labor contracts signed between Jiaming Group and employee Li. As far as the labor relationship established in the previous contract is concerned, according to the provisions of Article 23 of the Labor Law of the People's Republic of China, the labor contract shall be terminated upon expiration of the labor contract or the occurrence of the conditions for the termination of the labor contract agreed upon by the parties. . In this case, the previous contract period between employee Li and the company has become invalid with the conclusion, performance, and termination of the labor contract. The latter contract is not binding on the previous contract. In this case, the fact that the employee violated discipline occurred in the previous contract period, and the previous contract could only be terminated. Since the employer was already in the latter contract period when it discovered that the employee had violated discipline, the personal nature of the labor relationship made the expulsion decision unenforceable. Therefore, in this case, the employer can change sick leave pay to absenteeism pay, but it should no longer terminate the labor contract on the grounds of removal.
IV. Violations of discipline should be punished and wage deductions must be made in accordance with the law
(1) Introduction to the case
Shen, an employee of an enterprise, is responsible for the supply and marketing of the factory. With the expansion of business volume, the company sent additional employee Li to assist in the work. On Li's first day working in supply and marketing, a customer came to the factory to request delivery. The company arranged for Shen and Li to deliver the goods together. Shen refused, insisting on delivering the goods alone, and stopped the car to prevent the customer from delivering the goods. However, repeated attempts by the company leaders to persuade the customer were ineffective, causing the customer's delivery to be delayed by as much as 4 hours. For this reason, the company paid an additional 300 yuan in car rental fees, which also affected the company's reputation. In accordance with the rules and regulations, the company withheld all of Shen's wages for that month. Shen was dissatisfied and filed for arbitration with the Labor Dispute Arbitration Commission.
In the arbitration, the complainant Shen believed that he was not at fault when he asked one person to deliver the goods in the car, which caused the company to force two people to complete the work that could be completed. This loss should only be caused by two people. It is the responsibility of the enterprise. As a salaried person, my salary is my living wage. The deductions and penalties imposed by the company have made my life difficult, and the company should bear the responsibility.
The respondent company believes that in order to strengthen the supply and marketing business, it is not inappropriate to assign Li to familiarize himself with the business; Shen, as an employee, should obey the company's arrangements and abide by labor disciplines. Due to disciplinary violations, the company has the right to rely on Rules and regulations impose penalties.
The arbitration committee was unable to reach an agreement after mediation and made a ruling: (1) employee Shen violated discipline and caused losses to the company, and the company can impose penalties in accordance with the rules and regulations; (2) the deduction of all wages for the month was not in compliance with the regulations National regulations do not support this.
(3) Comments
Article 4 of the "Labor Law of the People's Republic of China" stipulates: "Employers shall establish and improve rules and regulations in accordance with the law to ensure that workers enjoy Labor rights and performance of labor obligations. "In order to strengthen the supply and marketing business, the company assigns novices to familiarize themselves with the business. This is a normal work arrangement. As an employee, Shen should obey it. Shen's unreasonable obstruction has constituted a disciplinary violation and has resulted in serious consequences. Businesses suffered economic losses. Enterprises have the right to impose penalties in accordance with rules and regulations.
However, the employer’s deductions from workers’ wages must not violate the provisions of our country’s laws and regulations. The Ministry of Labor stipulates in the "Interim Provisions on Wage Payment" that "if the employee causes economic losses to the employer, the employer may also require him to compensate for the economic losses in accordance with the labor contract. Compensation for economic losses can also be obtained from the employee. However, the monthly deduction shall not exceed 20% of the employee's monthly salary. Therefore, the company's practice of deducting all of Shen's salary is obviously inappropriate and should be corrected.