On The Issue Of Full Payment For The Only Child'S Pension Allowance

In December 2013, 49 year old ma Mou was hired by a garment factory in Weihai, and the two sides signed a one year labor contract.

In December 2014, after a statutory retirement age, Ma went through retirement procedures.

After retirement, Ma was told that he could receive a one-off one-child pension allowance from the retirement unit. He made a request to the garment factory but was refused.

Later, Ma submitted an arbitration application to the local labor and personnel dispute arbitration commission, which required 13101 yuan for the one-child pension allowance.

The garment factory argued that:

It belongs to the private enterprise, and family planning should respond to the call of the state for the workers and workers. The one-off pension allowance for retirees should not be borne by the enterprises.

Full payment of one-child pension allowance.

Because mediation fails.

According to the law, the garment factory paid 13101 yuan for the one-child one-child subsidy.

According to the Arbitration Commission, the regulations of the Shandong Province on population and family planning stipulate that only one child will voluntarily stop giving birth. After verification by the applicant's unit or the village (neighborhood) committee, the Township People's government or the sub district office will issue the only child parents' certificate of honor.

The only child parents are employees of the enterprises. When they retire, they will be given a one-off pension allowance from 30% of the average annual wages of their employees in the last year.

The provision clearly states that the retired workers have the right to require their units to pay the one-child allowance for their old age, while there is no special provision for the length of work in the unit.

Therefore, there is no legal basis for the proposal that Ma Mou should not pay the sum in full for one year.

Related links:

In December 2014, the labor contract between the small party and the unit was terminated due to the expiration of the contract, and then it was convenient to sign a two - year labor contract with another unit.

Xiaofang still has no pay in the original unit. The original unit let Xiao Fang go to collect it 5 days later.

It is convenient for the new unit to submit to the new unit one week before it can go to work formally.

Who knows, Xiaofang Xiaofang encountered a traffic accident on the way to the original unit to receive wages.

The traffic police confirmed that the driver took full responsibility.

Because neither the original unit nor the new unit handled work-related injury insurance for the small side, Xiao Fang had requested the two units to give compensation for work-related injuries respectively.

However, the original unit was rejected by Xiaofang and its existing labor relations. The new unit also said that the small side had not yet formally worked and did not agree to assume responsibility.

Where should the responsibility of industrial injury compensation be borne by Xiaofang?

The fourteenth article and sixth paragraph of the regulations on industrial injury insurance stipulate that workers should be identified as work-related injuries if they are injured by traffic accidents or urban rail pit, passenger ferry and train accidents on their way to and from work.

The sixty-second clause and the second paragraph stipulate that industrial injury insurance workers who have not participated in work-related injury insurance shall be paid for work-related injuries according to the provisions of these regulations.

It can be seen that the premise of the liability for work-related injury is to constitute such work-related injuries and employers. One is on the way to work and two on the way to work.

Xiaofang was only going to get wages, not on the way to and from work.

At the same time, Xiaofang does not belong to the employees of the original units or new units, because "workers" refer to the laborers who have labor relations with the employing units.

The labor contract between the small party and the original unit has expired, and according to the provisions of the tenth and third paragraph of the labor contract law, "the establishment of labor contracts between the employer and the laborer before the employment, and the establishment of the labor relations on the day of self employment", the labor relationship between the small party and the new unit has not yet been formally established.

Therefore, the traffic accident of Xiaofang, the original unit and the new unit are not liable for industrial injury compensation.