The Letter Of Commitment Is Wrong When The Labor Contract Is Expelled From The Discipline, But The Employee Has No Evidence.

In the confirmation of labor relations cases, according to the notice of the Ministry of labor and social security on the establishment of labor relations related matters, as long as laborers and employers comply with the main qualifications stipulated by law, the relationship between management and management, and the labor provided by labourers are part of the business of the employing units, they can be legally identified as labor relations between the two sides.

However, the controversy between Mr. Yang and the company is just the opposite.

Because Mr. Yang claimed that the company was breaking the law of its labor relations, it demanded that the company pay two times the wage difference without signing the labor contract.

The company took out a "commitment letter" which the two sides had signed and had always followed. It believed that the undertaking contained the main content of the labor contract, and it belonged to the labor contract, at least it should be regarded as a labor contract.

"Since there is a labor contract, no matter what the form is, it should be counted as a labor contract.

Mr. Yang should not ask the company to pay two times of the labor contract without a labor contract.

"

Although the company defends such an excuse, the Arbitration Commission and the court do not think so. If the company breaks the law in all its aspects, it should make an economic compensation to Mr. Yang for a total of 68 thousand yuan.

In August 1, 2014, Mr. Yang joined the Beijing Tang Tang Wedding Service Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Dian Tang Company"), serving as director of operations.

Despite the company's top management, the company has not signed a written labor contract with Mr. Yang.

Mr. Yang once asked about signing a labor contract, but the company owner replied: the two sides have signed a "undertaking".

This commitment has already explained in detail that Mr. Yang has provided labor for the company, and the company has paid remuneration to Mr. Yang and so on. As with the labor contract, there is no need to sign a formal labor contract.

A few months later, the company became increasingly dissatisfied with what Mr. Yang had done.

In January 2015, Mr. Yang was not serious enough to work. He was often late for work and left early.

Since the company does not want to use him, Mr. Yang is no longer reluctant to work.

Since January 16, 2015, he has been working with the company for dismissal and handover, and has completed the "employee leave application approval form".

The examination and approval form shows that the nature of resignation is "expulsion".

After leaving the Dian Tang company, Mr. Yang believed that there were many violations of laws and regulations and infringed upon their legitimate rights and interests. Therefore, he applied for arbitration to the Chaoyang District labor and personnel dispute arbitration committee.

In August 18th last year, the arbitration award confirmed that there was labor relationship between Dian Tang Company and Mr. Yang during the period from August 1, 2014 to January 16, 2015.

The company should pay Mr. Yang more than 15000 yuan of wages which he did not pay during the period from December 1, 2014 to January 31, 2015.

At the same time, because the company's action to expel Mr. Yang is illegal, the labor relations should be removed. Therefore, Mr. Yang should pay more than 9600 yuan compensation for illegal labor relations.

Since the company did not sign a written labor contract with Mr. Yang, it should pay two yuan of the wage balance of the labor contract not more than 44000 yuan, and at the same time dismissed Mr. Yang's other arbitration requests.

After the arbitral award, Tang Tang refused to accept the case and filed a lawsuit with the Chaoyang Court, requesting the court to decide not to pay Mr. Yang's wages, illegal compensation for labor relations and the double wage differential of labor contracts.

In the trial, the Tang Tang Company replied that its approval did not sign formal labor contracts with Mr. Yang, but the two parties signed a letter of commitment similar to the labor contract and the same as the labor contract.

Although the "promise" is not a labor contract on the surface, the main content has already been stated: Mr. Yang provides labor for Dian Tang company, and Dian Tang company pays labor remuneration to Mr. Yang.

In addition, there are almost exactly the same things as labor contracts.

Dian Tang Company believes that all these are sufficient to show that the labor relations and rights and obligations of both sides are clear and effective, and do not belong to the legal provisions of the two parties that have not signed the labor contract.

Although the letter of commitment is not a labor contract on the surface, it should at least be regarded as a labor contract.

Therefore, they do not agree to pay the difference of double wage which has not been signed.

As for the compensation for illegal labor relations, the company's reply to the "employee leave application approval form" presented by Mr. Yang said that the company did not deny the authenticity and legality of the approval form. However, judging from the contents of the table, it was clearly stated in the form that Mr. Yang's resignation was expelled from the original cause.

Mr. Yang himself and the person in charge of the company signed the approval form respectively, indicating that the two sides agreed to the expulsion.

The canon Tang Company believes that since Mr. Yang is dismissal from the rules and regulations of the company, the dissolution of labor relations between the two parties is not a violation of the law.

Therefore, the company believes that the act of expulsion of Mr. Yang does not violate the law, and is not illegal. It should not pay the so-called illegal labor relations compensation.

However, in the trial process, Dian Tang company failed to submit to the court that Mr. Yang did not work hard, often late and early retirement, and had adverse effects on the company.

However, in the court debate, neither side raised any objection to the arbitral award "the labor relations between the Dian Tang Company and Mr. Yang from August 1, 2014 to January 16, 2015".

At the same time, from December 1, 2014 to January 16, 2015, the Tang Tang company did not pay Mr. Yang's salary, and the court affirmed it.

The court held that the Supreme People's Court on civil matters

A number of provisions of the sixth article clearly stipulates that in the labor dispute dispute cases, the employer shall bear the burden of proof as a result of the decision of the employer to expel, remove, dismiss, rescind the labor contract, reduce labor remuneration, and calculate the length of working life.

In this case, Dian Tang company insisted that Mr. Yang's work was not serious, often delayed and left early, and caused adverse effects to the company, but he did not provide relevant evidence to prove it, so the court refused to accept it.

In the light of the "examination and approval form for employee leave application" submitted by Mr. Yang and the court hearing of the case, the court took the view that the January 16, 2015 Tang Dian company's illegal lifting of labor relations with Mr. Yang.

Therefore, Mr. Yang asked Tang Tang Company to pay compensation for illegal labor relations, which was supported by law and supported by the court.

For the Dian Tang company, which signed it with Mr. Yang.

In explanation, the court held that the labor contract is the agreement between the laborer and the employer to establish labor relations and clarify the rights and obligations of both sides.

In the labor contract, specific working hours, salary payment and other specific contents should be clearly specified.

The letter of promise produced by Dian Tang company, although it has a part of the labor contract stipulated by law, is essentially different from the labor contract, and does not have the forms and essentials of the labor contract stipulated by laws and regulations.

Therefore, the letter of commitment made by the Dian Tang Company is not accepted by the labor contract, and the court does not support the proposition that it does not agree to pay the difference of the double wage difference which has not signed the labor contract.

Based on the above reasons, the court decided to support Mr. Yang's demands while confirming the existence of labor relations between the two sides.

The content of the decision is exactly the same as that of the arbitration award.

Dian Tang believed the court decision was wrong and unfair and appealed to the third intermediate court of Beijing.

The reason is still that the undertaking is labor contract, and the double wage difference of labor contracts should not be paid.

In the resignation table, both parties agree on the reasons for leaving the job. The signature confirmation system is "expelled". Since it is expelled, it is sufficient to explain that Mr. Yang is not in line with the company's requirements and violates the company's rules and regulations.

Therefore, the dissolution of labor relations between the two parties is not illegal.

After the trial of the third central court, a final judgment was made recently: the appeal was rejected and the original judgment was upheld.