It Is Unreasonable To Fail To Prove That The Employee Is Wrong.

Huang Xiaohong, who worked in the mall for 3 years, had no evidence to prove that she had lost two boxes of women's shoes worth 25 thousand yuan. Therefore, she not only asked the mall to return the two month's wages that she had been deducted, but also suggested that she should not compensate for the loss.

In June 19th, the arbitration award supported her requests.

It is understood that Huang Xiaohong and the mall signed the last one.

The termination date is December 30, 2016, the monthly average income is 4600 yuan, the post is a salesperson and a brand woman shoe storekeeper.

In February 1st of this year, she finished counting the goods in the warehouse and signed the driver who came to pick up the goods and sent out 12 boxes of goods.

But Mr. Liu, the business manager, said to her second days, "more than two boxes of women's shoes have been sent out, and 14 boxes have actually been issued."

So she hurriedly followed manager Liu to the warehouse to check the stock and count it out. There were two boxes missing.

Manager Liu believes that this is caused by carelessness in her work. She should punish the company according to the internal management regulations of the shopping center, that is, deducting the salary of two yuan for 9200 yuan, and the remaining part of the loss is also made up for her.

At first, she thought she should retire in another year, and agreed to make such a compensation.

However, the mall informed her again in February 24th that the two sides should terminate their labor relations.

Huang Xiaohong believes that the practice of shopping malls has seriously infringed upon her legitimate rights and interests: first, the interior of shopping malls.

The formulation process was not democratic and unpublicized, so it had no legal effect.

Although it signed and recognized the relevant regulations in the regulations, it was also temporarily taken out and forced to sign on the shoe when the shoe accident occurred.

Second, according to "

The sixteenth provision of the Interim Provisions provides that if deducted that it is guilty and liable for compensation, the deduction amount deducted from wages shall not exceed 20% of the total wage in general, and the remaining wages after deduction shall not be lower than the local minimum wage standard.

The way of deduction is to make the two months' income zero, which seriously violates the law.

Third, there is no evidence that she lost her shoes.

During the court hearing of the Arbitration Commission, the shopping center submitted the video and rules and regulations of the goods for storage and storage, so as to prove that Huang Xiaohong was at fault, and that the punishment imposed on him was in conformity with the regulations, and the lifting of the labor relations between the two parties was also carried out according to law.

Huang Xiaohong argues that the video is true, although it can prove that it works at the scene, but it can not prove that it is related to the loss of shoes, and the video is incomplete, lacking the picture of the company's sales director and the driver who take the goods into the warehouse after leaving the warehouse.

And that may be the real reason for losing shoes.

The Arbitration Commission considers that the litigants should provide evidence to prove their claims.

Where there is no evidence or evidence to prove the facts of a party, the party who bears the burden of proof shall bear the adverse consequences.

The focus of the controversy is whether Huang Xiaohong has lost his shoes. The video evidence submitted in the shopping mall is not enough to prove the matter. Huang Xiaohong explicitly supported his view and refused to accept the idea of shopping malls.

For this reason, the arbitral award Huang Xiaohong should not be liable for compensation, and the store must return the 9200 yuan that has been deducted.