Employees Promise Not To Buy Social Security Companies Or To Take Full Responsibility.

The employee has not entered into a labor contract with the company, and promises: the employee voluntarily requests the company not to purchase social insurance for the company during its inauguration, and agrees to accept the company's allowance for not buying social security. The employee shall not, in this case, release the labor relationship with the company in advance, and ask the company to pay the economic compensation.

Is a promise like this legal and effective? The people's Court of Jinjiang District, Chengdu, tells you that such an employee's promise is not legally binding, and even if the employee promises to give up the company to purchase social security, the unit still has to bear legal liability.

In August 2011, a company in Chengdu established a labor relationship with Xu, signed no labor contract, and signed a letter of commitment for employees not to buy social security applications.

The main content is Xu's official employee. He voluntarily waived the company's purchase of social security during his inauguration, and agreed to accept the subsidy that the company did not buy for its social security.

At the same time, Xu also promised that the company would not terminate the labor contract ahead of time without requiring the company to undertake the social security reasons.

。

But Xu didn't sign it with him.

He did not apply for arbitration to the labour and personnel dispute arbitration committee on August 2015 for his reason for paying social security.

The company refused to accept the case and filed a lawsuit with the people's Court of Jinjiang District.

In September 2015, Xu submitted the notice of termination of labor relations to the company.

The court held that although the company had not signed a labor contract with Xu, the two sides had established the contract.

In compliance with the "employer's employment date, if the employee fails to write a written labor contract for more than one month, he shall pay two times the monthly wage to the worker". Therefore, the company shall pay two times the monthly salary to Xu, which amounts to 15400 yuan.

In addition, employers should also pay social security for their employees according to the state regulations.

The company, on the grounds that employees do not buy the promise of social security (application), does not pay social security to Xu, which violates the mandatory provisions of the law. Xu is relieving labor contracts by this way, which is consistent with the situation that workers can rescind the labor contract in the labor contract law of the People's Republic of China.

In the end, the court sentenced the company to pay 15400 yuan for the two times wage difference of the labor contract signed by Xu, and 7375 yuan for the economic compensation for the termination of the labor contract in advance.

Related links:

A mining equipment Co., Ltd. of Linyi has the qualification of construction and the main body of the employment. It has contracted the project of a certain structure of the entrance and exit of a garden, and subcontracted part of the project to a building material company without corresponding construction qualification and safe production conditions.

Building materials Co., Ltd. subcontracted the project to Jiang Zhe, a natural person, and a useless wage bank.

In August 2015, Jiang took over a number of people for construction.

On behalf of a certain site, welding and glass installation work was carried out. The two sides agreed to pay 200 yuan per day.

In November 9th of the same year, when he was installing a car ramp glass at the entrance of the underground parking lot, he fell and fell to the hospital for treatment.

Due to the failure to enjoy the treatment of industrial injury, he filed a complaint with the local labor and personnel dispute arbitration committee on behalf of one of them, and demanded confirmation of the existence of labor relations between himself and mine equipment Co., Ltd.

The Arbitration Commission concluded that after the contract was contracted, the responsibility of the mining equipment limited company could not be pferred.

The fourth article of the notice on the confirmation of labor relations matters stipulates: "construction units, mining enterprises and other employing units will contract the project (business) or the management right to the organizations or natural persons who do not have the qualification of the employment subject, and the workers who are recruited to the organization or natural persons shall bear the responsibility of the main body of the employment by the employer who has the qualification of the employer."

In addition, the seventh article on the implementation of the "industrial injury insurance Ordinance" also stipulates: "the contractor with the qualification of the employer is in violation of the provisions of laws and regulations, subcontracting and subcontracting the contracted business to the organization or natural person who does not have the qualification of the main body of the employment. If the employee employed by the organization or the natural person is engaged in the contract business, because of the casualties, the contractor with the qualification of the employment subject shall bear the liability for industrial injury insurance according to the law of the employer."

According to the above provisions, the Arbitration Commission finally ruled that there was labor relationship between a certain mining equipment Co., Ltd. and Linyi.