30 Minutes Late, More Than 3 Times. What Do You Think Of Absenteeism?

In many companies' regulations, there are regulations such as: "employees who are late for a certain period of time are regarded as absenteeism, and the company can deduct the corresponding amount of wages."

So, is such a provision legally valid? Can the company deduct the wages of the employees, and can employees ask the company to return it? From the case of Haidian court, we can get some enlightenment.

[case review]

The employee was dismissed many times and asked for the company to return and deduct the wages.

In March 2012, Mr. Wang joined Beijing Xinye culture and Art Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Xinye company).

The two sides signed labor contracts from that day to March 2015, and Mr. Wang's wage standard was 8000 yuan per month.

During his stay, Mr. Wang was working 5 days a week, working hours 8:30-17:30 (noon break 1 hours) per day, and attendance by punch card.

However, due to the late arrival from March 2014 to May, the company withheld Mr. Wang's salary according to the record of punch card.

The company also depends on its

"More than three times more than 30 minutes in a single month is regarded as absenteeism, automatic termination of labor contract", which is a heavy penalty for Mr. Wang to pay three times daily wages, and he dismissed Mr. Wang in May 26, 2014.

Since then, Mr. Wang has applied for arbitration to the Haidian District labor and personnel dispute arbitration commission on the ground that he is required to pay wages.

Mr. Wang believes that the company's behavior of withholding wages is illegal and requires the company to return the corresponding wages.

The Arbitration Commission ruled that the company paid Mr. Wang's wage difference between March 2014 and May 2014 10199 yuan.

Xinye company refused to accept the ruling and filed a lawsuit with the Haidian court.

[trial process]

The company was called for absenteeism for three times.

In the trial, the company submitted the attendance book and said that during the two months from March 2014 to May, the number of Mr. Wang was more than 30 minutes late was 13 and 7 times.

The company calculates the tardiness according to the rules and regulations, deducting 1737 yuan and 962 yuan respectively in the wages.

In addition, because Mr. Wang has been more than 3 minutes late for more than 30 minutes in the above two months, he has paid 3 times the time of the day's deduction from the fourth day, according to the day's absenteeism.

The company said its "

"It is stated that:" employees who are not late for work, leave time, leave more than 3 times per month for more than 30 minutes, leave without any reason, or leave without permission, shall be punished according to absenteeism. The absenteeism shall be punished by 3 times daily wages, and automatically terminate the labor contract. "

The company also submitted a note on Mr. Wang's attendance, which stated: "in April 2014, Mr. Wang refused to implement the new code of employee for the company's new employee code.

After consulting with General Li, Mr. Wang began implementing the new employee code in April 2014.

The signature of Mr. Wang is underneath.

The company also submitted a record of attendance card, but it did not contain Mr. Wang's signature.

Mr. Wang said that the company did not issue the employee code to the company when it signed, and the company informed him that his working hours could be more flexible, and the two sides had already reached an oral agreement.

There is no official seal and other personnel's signature in Mr. Wang's attendance notes submitted by the company.

Mr. Wang recognized the record of attendance records, but said that late card punching was due to its relatively flexible working hours.

[judgement]

The court held that the company's system was illegal and ordered to return the ten thousand yuan wage difference.

The court held that although Mr. Wang advocated an oral agreement with the company to carry out the flexible work system, he failed to mention the evidence, so he refused to accept it and adopted the idea of Xinye company.

The new industry company deducted 1737 yuan and 962 yuan respectively according to the time of late arrival in the corresponding period of wages. Mr. Wang acknowledged this, and the court did not object to this.

Furthermore, in the code of employees, Xinye company aims to make employees late for more than 30 minutes, and stipulates three times the wages on the day of the penalty.

For this reason, although Mr. Wang has been late for more than 30 minutes many times, he has come to work in the post, and has fulfilled the obligation to provide labor as a laborer. Xinye company should pay Mr. Wang's remuneration for the corresponding period.

Now Xinye company has made a corresponding deduction for Mr. Wang's late behavior. On the basis of this, three times the wages on the basis of the penalty, which is in violation of the mandatory provisions of the labor contract law, lacks reasonable basis.

Finally, the court made a judgement accordingly, Xinye company paid Mr. Wang wage difference of 10199 yuan.