Should The Year-End Award Arouse Enthusiastic Attention?

Joe: I am a member of an industrial park.

In order to promote the harmony and stability of labor relations in the park, we often provide free policy and legal advice for enterprises in the park. At the same time, a special labor dispute mediation organization has been set up to mediate some labor dispute disputes in the park.

Recently, we encountered two disputes involving year-end awards in mediating labour disputes.

It was a dispute over the resignation of Xiao Li, a staff member of a pharmaceutical factory.

Xiao Li is a member of the R & D Department of the factory. He has worked for more than two years.

Xiao Li said the company signed a labor contract with an annual salary of 180 thousand, 13000 yuan per month, and the rest at the end of the year as a year-end bonus.

In November, it resigned for personal reasons, requiring the unit to pay the year-end bonus of 10 months on a pro rata basis.

The unit said that the year-end bonus should be paid only during the Spring Festival, and there are regulations in the factory that the staff who are still on duty when they are released are not allowed to pay the year-end bonus.

Another dispute is the dispute between a packaging material factory and the employee Lao Yao's termination of the labor contract.

In the settlement of all costs, Lao Yao proposed that in addition to the monthly fixed wages and various subsidies, there is still a small year-end bonus every year. Now it is the unit that does not do it again. It should pay the year-end bonus and include it in the wage base of the calculation of economic compensation.

The unit said that there was no agreement between the two sides for the year-end bonus. This year, the business efficiency is poor and there is no intention to extend the year-end bonus.

What is the scale of the year-end bonus?

Mr. Xi Xi, the reader,

Wages refer to the remuneration paid by the employer directly to the workers in the form of money in accordance with the relevant provisions of the state or the labor contract, generally including time wages, piecework wages, bonuses, allowances and allowances, wages extended for working hours, and wages paid under special circumstances.

The year-end bonus belongs to the nature of bonus. As an incentive measure, it is not the state compulsory employer must give laborers the treatment.

Generally speaking, to deal with such disputes, we usually first examine whether there is a good agreement between the two parties, that is, whether the labor contract, the collective contract has an agreement or the enterprise salary system.

Where there is a definite stipulation in terms of the labor contract, collective contract, or the conditions for payment of the year-end bonus and the way of payment in the enterprise salary system, when the employee leaves office, the employer shall determine whether the year-end bonus is required according to the stipulations of the contract or the salary system.

However, when the parties' agreement is unclear or the remuneration system is not specified, we usually consider that the enterprise has the right to decide whether to release the year-end bonus in the year.

In the handling of cases, we will also base on the principle of equal pay for equal work and refer to the annual year-end bonus of other employees in the same situation as that of the enterprise.

The overall situation is different from that of the enterprises. However, due to the different circumstances of the year-end awards, it is not necessary to combine the specific circumstances.

At present, the controversial issue involving year-end awards is whether the enterprise can stipulate that employees who have already left the year-end bonus can not enjoy year-end awards.

In this regard, we believe that the year-end bonus payment belongs to the independent management category of the employer, and it has the right to decide the conditions, amount, time and other specific matters of the year-end bonus.

But in

In practice, there are also some labor remuneration that some employers have to intercept workers as year-end awards, which restrict workers to leave.

For such disputes, if there is evidence to prove that the year-end award that has been withheld is part of the normal remuneration of the worker, then the user shall stipulate that the employee who has already been away from work can not get the year-end bonus, which is also not binding on him. He still has the right to require the employer to pay the year-end award of the retained part.

From what you have described, Xiao Li and his unit have agreed on the specific annual salary amount in the labor contract, and agreed to pay part of the salary in advance, and the rest as the year-end bonus.

It is not difficult to see from its agreement that the retained part is also an integral part of Xiao Li's daily wage income, which is different from the nature of the award. The two sides merely postpone the payment of the part of the salary through consensual decision without additional conditions.

Xiao Li's unit

Although the conditions for the year-end bonus are prescribed, the provision should only apply to incentive incentives outside the daily wages paid by the enterprise.

It is wrong for Xiao Li's unit to oppose the contract agreement with rules and regulations.

Xiao Li has left now, and the employer should settle his wages with him.

As for Lao Yao, it is obvious that there is no agreement between the unit and its year-end bonus. Because of poor efficiency, the unit decided not to issue year-end bonus as its independent management behavior, and Lao Yao's request could not be supported.

Close to the year, there are many similar disputes. I hope that when you mediate disputes, you will urge employers to standardize the year-end bonus distribution through contract agreement or system. On the other hand, you should also criticize the abuse of power by employers.