The Dispatched Workers Can Also Enjoy Annual Leave.

Workers who are eligible for annual leave can enjoy annual leave, regardless of labor dispatch or other forms of employment.

In March 2014, Zhao signed a 2 year labor dispatch contract with a labor dispatch company in Ji'nan, and was sent to an industrial company in Ji'nan.

At the end of 2015, Zhao asked the industrial company to rest for 5 days.

But it was rejected.

In March 2016, when Zhao and a labor dispatching company terminated the contract, they applied to the local labor and personnel dispute arbitration committee to request the industrial company to pay 300% of the 5 day wages of the unpaid annual leave, which amounted to 3600 yuan.

The Arbitration Commission heard that

The second provision of the annual leave regulations stipulates that: "employees of organs, groups, enterprises, institutions, private non enterprise units, and individual workers, such as workers and employees, who have worked for 1 consecutive years, enjoy paid annual leave."

The third provision for the implementation of paid annual leave for enterprises is stipulated in the following article: "workers who enjoy continuous work for more than 12 months shall be entitled to paid annual leave."

The fourteenth rule states: "the workers of the labor dispatch units meet the conditions stipulated in the third provision of this method and enjoy the annual leave."

In this case, Zhao was dispatched to an industrial company.

For more than 12 months, 5 days of annual leave should be enjoyed during 2015.

According to the "implementation method of paid annual leave for enterprise employees", the annual leave wage is paid by 300% of the daily wage income.

Finally, the Arbitration Commission ruled that an industrial company paid 3600 yuan of annual leave for Zhao.

Related links:

After witnessing too many heavy cases, can the functional departments compensate for the defects of the "life and death time limit" through other relief mechanisms outside the law? And the victims may also try to choose more channels such as medical insurance and social security other than work-related injury insurance, so as to win more protection for their rights and interests.

In December 29, 2015, Miss Cheng, a shoe factory in Shenzhen, suddenly collapsed in the workshop and was sent to the hospital until he was declared dead at 13:35 on December 31st.

The family members asked for a work-related injury, but they were refused because of the legal rescue time limit.

The Guangdong industrial injury insurance Ordinance stipulates that workers who died of sudden illness or died within forty-eight hours after working hours and jobs were regarded as work-related injuries.

The Shenzhen Municipal Social Security Bureau believes that the rescue of "more than 48 hours" does not meet the requirements, so it is identified that Ms. Cheng does not belong to or do not consider injury as a work-related injury.

Faced with such a tragedy, it is easy for public opinion to draw a negative conclusion that "rescue over 48 hours is not a work-related injury".

But if we comb the wording of the relevant articles and the legislative intent behind it, we will find that is not the case.

There are still many differences between judicial judgment and common sense judgment regarding the identification of industrial injury and death treatment. There are still many misunderstandings and misunderstandings among the public.

Working hours, working places, and work reasons - the source of injury from work is the essential feature of work-related injury insurance.

According to the law, the death of a sudden illness or death within 48 hours during the working hours and jobs is considered to be the same as industrial injury.

The so-called "work injury" expression means that the above conditions can enjoy the same "work-related injury treatment", we can see that the scope of the law for industrial injury has been relatively broad.

In many countries, even in developed countries, their own disease attacks or deaths are not identified as industrial injuries.

The current system arrangement for industrial injury in our country is not only to provide the bottom line benefits protection for the workers who are dying due to illness, but also to avoid the huge cost generated by the concrete case appraisal.

Just imagine, if all the workers who die on the job because of illness, all enterprises are required to be treated according to the treatment of workers' death. The latter may be overburdened.

In view of this, in order to balance the interests of enterprises and reduce the risk of unlimited compensation, the law only has the restriction of "injury within 48 hours".

However, the "48 hours" rule is directed against the condition of the disease rather than the direct work. If the injury is caused by occupational diseases or accidents at work, it is not subject to this time limit.

In this regard, "rescue over 48 hours is not an injury" is not accurate, but Cheng's death and work are not necessarily causality, and the loss of family members is inevitable.

There must be a limit to the law and the "48 hours" limit of industrial injury. Naturally, it has its reasonable intentions and corresponding considerations, but it has also created some ethical dilemmas: if the family members insist on treatment, they will probably lose their treatment because of "overtime"; if they choose negative treatment, they may get considerable compensation.

In this regard, it is necessary to recognize that industrial injury insurance is not omnipotent, just as some experts stressed that the purpose of work-related injury insurance is not to punish and compensate, but to enable employers to change production conditions, reduce work-related injuries and make workers less vulnerable.

After witnessing too many heavy cases, can the functional departments make up for the defects of the "life and death time limit" through other relief mechanisms outside the law? And the victims may also try to choose medical insurance and social security other than industrial injury insurance to win more protection for their rights and interests.