Do Enterprises Really Have No Right To Impose A Fine On Employees?

If you are late for work, you will be fined, not completed, and your business will be fined.

In real life, many units are often fined in the system of rewards and punishment and the system of attendance.

In this regard, some support for objection.

Since the abolition of the regulations on rewards and penalties for employees of enterprises formulated by the State Council in January 15, 2008, whether enterprises have the right to impose fines on employees according to the operation and management system of enterprises, there have been different voices in the society.

Not long ago, a legal precedent in the South was taken as the breakthrough point.

Is there any legal basis for employing units to impose fines on employees? What are the viewpoints in practice? With the topic of public concern, our reporter visited the Beijing Bar Association.

Li Yuxiang, a Specialized Committee member of the law of procedure and director of Beijing Zhong Shi law firm, asked him to analyze and interpret it.

Case

Violation of discipline by enterprises

Failure of court final trial unit

Wu entered a company in 5 months in 2008. Both sides signed the contract.

Convention: Wu should abide by the company's management system and discipline. The company has the right to amend the management system according to the management needs, and check, reward and punish Wu's performance.

The internal management system formulated by a company stipulates that every employee should submit a written report to the chief executive and the general manager every week on Saturday, using E-mail to make a report. If he fails to perform the work, he will be fined 20 yuan for 1 times per week.

For 1 months without execution, the company violates the company's rules and regulations seriously.

Wu resigned after the expiration of the contract.

The company paid 10 yuan of wages and 200 yuan as a fine for Wu's unreported weekly reports and illegal departure.

Wu applied for arbitration to the local arbitration commission. The Arbitration Commission ruled that a company returned a fine of 200 yuan to Wu.

The company refused to accept the ruling and asked the court to pay a fine of 200 yuan due to its weekly report.

In the end, the court of second instance rejected its appeal on the grounds that the company had no factual basis and legal basis, and supported the company's repayment of a fine of 200 yuan to Wu.

Comment and analysis

If there is a contract in the labor contract

Fine or may be regarded as liquidated damages.

Li Yuxiang: in the circle of friends of WeChat, I saw this article.

In this case, I noticed that the court of second instance rejected all appeals of the company on the grounds of a company's claim without fact basis and legal basis, and supported the company's refund of 200 yuan to Wu.

Because I do not understand the specific case, such as the situation of proof, the court proceedings and so on, I have no objection to the verdict of the case.

Only in theory can we talk about whether an enterprise has the right to impose a fine on employees.

First, if a company has sufficient evidence to prove that Wu has not reported to the competent leaders and general managers for one week's work in accordance with the regulations of the internal management system of the enterprise, the arbitration institution and the people's court should support a company fining Wu by 200 yuan in accordance with the labor law and the labor contract signed by both parties. If a company has no sufficient evidence to prove that Wu has violated the provisions of the internal management system, the arbitration institution and the people's court can dismiss a company's claim for litigation on the grounds of no facts and legal grounds.

Second, there is no legal authorization for a company to punish employees according to the management of the enterprise system.

The functions and powers of a company's managerial personnel, such as the chairman and general manager, are decided by the company's articles of association formulated by the company law, or decided by the company's shareholders' meeting and board of directors.

As long as the decision of a company's constitution, board of directors and other decision-making bodies does not violate the prohibition provisions of the company law and other laws, it is OK.

Third, the relationship between enterprises and employees is, in the final analysis, a contractual relationship and a category of civil legal mediation.

The relationship between enterprises and employees is not the relationship between administrative departments and administrative objects, and does not belong to the scope of administrative law and regulation.

Anyone who says that enterprises have no right to punish employees can find the legal basis for government departments to administer according to law.

I have noticed some scholars' views on this case. They are also interpreted from the perspective of administrative laws and regulations, rather than from the labor contract relationship.

The contractual relationship between two equal civil subjects is based on equal and voluntary private rights.

The contract law stipulates that the party who has kept the contract has the right to request the party to breach the contract to pay liquidated damages and damages, and the liquidated damages are in essence a fine for breach of contract.

Specifically, in this case, a company fined 200 yuan for Wu is in essence a breach of the contract stipulated in the labor contract. If there is sufficient evidence to prove that Wu has violated the contract signed by both parties, a company fines 200 yuan for Wu, and the law should be protected.