Unspecified Probationary Period, Adverse Consequences, Unit Commitment

In September 1, 2013, Qian Mou entered a technology company, the two sides only signed a probation agreement, agreed that Qian's probation period began in September 1, 2013, but did not specify the probation period.

Since then, the two sides have not signed any labor contracts.

In February 26, 2014, Qian Mou appealed to the court and asked the unit to pay the double wage difference which did not sign the labor contract.

In the court trial, Qian argued that the actual probation period was 2 months, which was revised in November 1, 2013.

The technology company claims that the probation agreement is the nature of the labor contract, and the probation period is up to 6 months.

。

After the trial, the court held that

If the agreement is not clear, the technology company as a

The party responsible for management should bear the burden of proof on the probation period. No evidence has been submitted to prove it. It should bear the consequences of not giving evidence.

The court accepted the proposition that Qian had a probationary period of 2 months.

From November 1, 2013 to February 26, 2014, because the technology company did not sign a labor contract with Qian, it should pay the double wage difference which did not sign the labor contract.

Related links:

If the two parties fail to change the contract after the expiration of the irregular working system, they will continue to perform the contract according to the original contract. The worker claims that the right and duty is determined according to the standard working hour system and the overtime payment shall be paid according to the standard working hour system, which has no legal basis.

In 2010, the plaintiff Zhang Yue signed a labor contract with the defendant, Beijing foreign enterprise marketing consultant Co., Ltd. (Beijing foreign company), which agreed that the contract period was from April 2, 2010 to April 7, 2014, and the working hours were irregular working hours.

In September 10, 2009, the approval of the defendant's Beijing foreign company's special working hours was approved, with a period of three years.

In December 27, 2013, the defendant applied for the irregular working system again, and passed the examination and approval in December 30th of the same year for a period of three years.

The plaintiff held that after the expiration of the examination and approval in September 10, 2012, the defendant had not made timely examination and approval, and the two sides should deal with it according to the standard working hours.

Disputes arise between the two parties, and the plaintiff applies for arbitration. The plaintiff disagrees with the arbitration award and appealed to the court.

The Plaintiff alleged that in 2010, the defendant at the entry office often delayed overtime work during the work. The defendant did not pay the overtime payment in full, and the plaintiff refused to accept the arbitration award. He sued the court to order the defendant to pay 35395.8 yuan overtime.

The defendant argued that the plaintiff should not pay overtime pay according to the law because of the irregular working hours.

According to the trial of the people's Court of Heping District of Tianjin, the special time limit of the defendant is due to expire in September 10, 2012 during the performance of the labor contract. However, the job and work contents of the plaintiff have not changed. They should be deemed to continue to perform the contract according to the original agreement, and the defendant should undertake the corresponding administrative responsibility when he has not done so.

The plaintiff insisted that the working hours should be calculated according to the standard working hours and the overtime payment should be paid according to the time limit of the irregular work hours.

The plaintiff lodge an appeal against the first instance judgment.

According to the trial of the first intermediate people's Court of Tianjin, although the examination and approval process has expired, the two sides have not changed the contract, but still continue to perform according to the contents of the contract.

If the appellant fails to go through the examination and approval procedures in time, he shall bear the corresponding legal liability. However, the appellant, on the grounds of this, requires that there be no legal basis for determining the relationship between rights and obligations of the two parties according to the standard working hours and paying the corresponding overtime fees accordingly.

The judgment dismissed the appeal and upheld the original judgment.