The company is no need to make the compensation even unilaterally terminate the labor contract

作者:亓玉晶 时间:2011-02-12

The Case Scenario:

Mr. Lee was employed by the Shanghai TianDi Elevator Company (abbreviation for the company below) on the date of 12^th June 2008 with the terminated date of 25^th November 2011.Mr. Lee actually left the company on the date 25^th August 2010.00

The company later during the audit found out that Mr. Lee’s claim for the account was in false invoice and discrepancy as much as 1,400.00 RMB to the actual account, which Mr. Lee was unable to give the reasonable explanations. As for that, the company would dismiss Mr. Lee according to its own rules and regulations. On the date of 14^th September 2010, Mr. Lee filed the arbitration requirements to the Labor Arbitration Committee of Shanghai Ming hang District for the following the compensation; 1: the compensation of RMB 30,965.00 as result of unlawfully dismiss the labor relationship; 2: the payment of the quarter bonus during the period of April to September 2010; 3: the claim of RMB 10,250.00 for being unable to take the vacation during the period of 2009 and 2010.

Mr. Lee explained his no idea of the false invoice during the labor arbitration, and claimed to refund RMB 1,400.00 to the company; meanwhile, Mr. Lee also offered the documents with the airliner agency侵占罪立案标准数额’s stamp clarifying that Mr. Lee was in no idea for the discrepancy. Due to the above-mentioned evidence supplied by Mr. Lee, the labor arbitration committee finally made the judgment that the company should make the compensation to Mr. Lee as the dismiss of contract, and the committee would support the Mr. Lee’s applications and claims.

The company authorized the solicitor of Helen Qi to settle the case, the solicitor pointed out that whether the way of dismiss was illegal and should the company make the payment according to the quarter bonus, finally, how to make the calculation of the period of being unable to take the vacation.

After the evidence inspection, the solicitor would consider that as followed:

1. The way of dismiss is legally in corresponding with the labor law, the companies’ rules, and the labor contract. The company was unnecessary to make the compensation. Additionally, Helen Qi made the research that the so-called documents supplied by the 事实上[推荐]商品房买卖的流程及其风险防范-上海房产律师 (2011-4-15 16:25:17)“airliner agency” actually came from nothing. During the process, Helen Qi would clarify that Mr. Lee was actually have clear understanding of the related rules and the regulations when claiming for the account, even knew the discrepancy of 1,400.00. Because of Helen Qi’s newly-found claim, Mr. Lee acknowledged that his way of false invoice was to satisfy the interest of the company and the airliner.

2. The quarter bonus was in relevant with the related conditions and the criteria, and Mr. Lee was unqualified during the period, so the bonus was not paid to him.

3. The way of the calculation of the time unable to taking the vacation was wrongful calculated.

The court’s judgment was below:

1. The company is no need to make the compensation as the termination of the contract.

2. The company is no need to make the compensation of the quarter.

3. The company made the payment of RMB 1,116.40 to Mr. Lee as his unable to take the vacation during the period of 2009 and 2010.