What Do Units Do When They Violate The Contract And Do Not Pay Overtime?

I am an employee of a company.

When entering the company in 2013, he signed a labor contract with the company. The contract clearly stated that it was standard labor hours.

During the later work, the unit arranged for me to work overtime several times, but I never paid overtime.

The company said that my working hours belonged to the comprehensive working hours, which was inconsistent with the labor contract I signed.

I would like to ask how to deal with this situation.

Lawyer reply: Cheng Zhengfang and Zhang Guochen lawyer of Tianjin water beating law firm replied that the company did not explicitly stipulate the standard labor hours in the labor contract signed at the time of your entry, but refused to pay overtime fees on the basis of the comprehensive working hours employment system. There is no factual basis and legal basis.

First of all, labor contract is a special form of contract, but it belongs to the category of contract.

Therefore, labor contracts should also be subject to the principle of contract, including the principle of good faith.

Your company still fails to perform in accordance with the contract in a definite contract. It violates the obligations stipulated in the contract and violates the principle of good faith, which is improper.

Second, according to the provisions of the "wage payment regulations", the thirteenth "labor contract signed by the employer for a comprehensive working hours" must be subject to the examination and approval of the labor administrative department.

It does not reflect the fact that the company has produced the documents approved by the labor administration department to you, that is, there is no labor contract agreement with comprehensive hours.

To sum up, your

The way of calculation should be in accordance with "

There are thirteenth articles about "standard working hours overtime pay".

Related links:

The parties entered into a workshop contract agreement with the company, and the contract period was not fully terminated.

Due to the lack of legal knowledge, it is wrongly believed that the labor relations between the two sides have been pformed into contractual relations, and the direct prosecution to the court requires the company to pay compensation for breach of contract damages of 500 thousand yuan.

Recently, a people's Court concluded the contract dispute case. The first instance ruled against the plaintiff's prosecution.

In October 20, 2012, the plaintiff formally filled the employee registration form and became an employee of a defendant company.

In November 10, 2012, a contract agreement was signed between the defendant and the defendant. The defendant awarded the company "car flower Department" from November 1, 2012 to the plaintiff for two years.

The contract stipulates that the plaintiff shall be responsible for the creditor's rights and liabilities of the contract unit and the plaintiff's work-related injury and industrial injury insurance during the production and operation period. The defendant shall not interfere with the production and personnel allocation of Party B, but the plaintiff must obey the factory regulations and management regulations of Party A without any conditions. If a breach occurs, the party will pay 3 times the base salary to the other party as a compensation for breach of contract.

After the signing of the contract, both parties fulfilled the contract 6 months according to the contract. In April 2013, the defendant unilaterally terminated the contract and dismissed the plaintiff.

After the trial, the court held that, from the instructions of the defendant (plaintiff) and the commuter card of the plaintiff, the relationship between management and management was reflected. Therefore, the plaintiff and the defendant company were not equal subjects in the contract law, and the disputes arising from the two parties were also not within the scope of the contract law.

The agreement signed between the defendant and the defendant is still an internal management contract in the labor relations, and its relationship is actually a labor relationship, not a contractual relationship.

Accordingly, the court made the above judgment.