The Insured Workers Have Objections To The Disability Allowance.

The unit has paid work-related injury insurance premiums for Zhang, Zhang.

If there is any objection, it will appeal to the labor arbitration department and the court, and ask the unit to make up the difference.

Recently, the court's final judgment dismissed its request.

Zhang worked for a company in Weihai in January 1987. The company paid industrial injury insurance premiums for Zhang.

In March 3, 2011, Zhang sprained his waist in a workshop with a hammer.

In March 13, 2012, the Rushan Municipal Bureau of human resources and social affairs decided that Zhang was injured as an industrial injury, and in September 29th, Weihai city.

The Identification Committee confirmed that the degree of disability was 10.

In November 4, 2011, Zhang returned to the unit to work normally.

In August 1, 2013, the company pferred Zhang from the foundry to the sintering workshop, but Zhang did not report to the sintering workshop.

In November 11, 2013, the company made a decision to remove the name of Zhang because of its continuous absenteeism for more than 50 days, violating the rules of the factory and agreed by the trade union.

Zhang believes that he is not absenteeism, but because.

Relapse did not go to work.

In December 23rd, Zhang submitted an arbitration application to the Rushan labor and personnel dispute arbitration commission, demanding that the company should terminate the labor contract and pay the balance of disability allowance 1591.8 yuan.

After the ruling of the Arbitration Commission, Zhang refused to accept the case to the Rushan municipal court.

The court held that Zhang did not submit to the unit the written application for extending the period of suspension and the certificate of leave issued by the medical institution. He did not work in the unit and formed the fact of absenteeism. In accordance with the rules and regulations, the unit agreed with the trade union, and its termination of the labor contract was lawful and effective.

Because the company has paid the insurance premium for the work injury for Zhang, according to the provisions of the thirty-seventh article of the industrial injury insurance regulations, the disposable disability subsidy should be paid from the industrial injury insurance fund. Zhang will disagree on the amount, and should claim the right to the relevant functional departments. Zhang asked the company to pay the disposable disability subsidy balance, which is not the jurisdiction of the court accepting the labor dispute cases.

The court dismissed the claim from Zhang.

Zhang still refused to accept the appeal to the Weihai intermediate people's court.

Recently, the court made a final judgment: dismissed the appeal and upheld the original judgment.

Related links:

Lao Wang is a dispatched worker of a company. He has worked in the company for 10 years. After the contract expired last December 28th, the company decided not to renew the contract with them and the sending company.

According to the company's rules and regulations, in the past, twelfth months' salary was paid more than one month's salary per year as a year-end bonus to employees. However, employees who left the company before December 31st could not enjoy the year-end salary, so the company did not pay 5 salaries for Lao Wang.

But they did not accept that they were only 3 days short of 1 years, and the company did not renew their contract with them.

The year-end bonus is a management method of the employing units. The law does not stipulate that the employing units must issue them, and many units refuse to give them away.

Then, should we send year-end bonus to the departing employees?

According to the law, according to the provisions of the National Bureau of statistics on the composition of total wages, the gross amount of wages refers to the total amount of remuneration paid by all units directly to all employees in a certain period of time, including "bonus", including the production award.

As far as the scope of the production award is concerned, according to the interpretation of some specific areas of the provisions on the composition of total wages, it mainly includes overproduction awards, quality awards and year-end awards (labor dividends).

It can be seen that the bonus is part of the total wage, and the year-end bonus is a bonus. Therefore, the year-end bonus can be recognized as part of the salary.

According to the forty-sixth provision of the labor law, wage distribution should follow the principle of distribution according to work, equal pay for equal work, and year-end bonus belongs to labor remuneration. Therefore, the principle of equal pay for equal work should also be followed.

Therefore, as long as the labor contract or rules and regulations clearly specify the year-end bonus of the workers, and the workers have actually paid the labor, they will have the right to get the year-end bonus. If the workers did not work for the full year, they should be offset according to the actual working months.

From the legal attribute of year-end awards, year-end awards belong to the category of labor law.

The employer has the right to decide whether the year-end bonus is issued or not, and how to issue it. It also has the right to decide the specific standard, scope and method of the year-end bonus distribution.

Therefore, if the employer explicitly stipulates that the year-end bonus belongs to the company's special welfare in the rules and regulations or the labor contract, and stipulates that the employee should not enjoy the year-end bonus, the company should not pay the year-end bonus of the employee.

Specifically, in this case, the company has clearly stipulated that employees who left the company before December 31st could not enjoy the year-end double pay, so it would be lawful for the company not to pay 5 months' salary of thirteenth months.