Is The Year-End Bonus Accepted By The Employees In The Year?

In May 10, 2012, Li worked for a company, and the two sides signed a labor contract with a deadline from October 30, 2016. According to the contract, Li's position is the quality engineer of the project management department, with a salary of 9000 yuan / month. The company's salary management system stipulates that the year-end bonus is determined by the company's performance according to the current management and annual objectives. The assessment period starts from January 1st to December 31st. No employee will be released before the end of the year award. From 2012 to 2014, the company paid the year-end bonus of Li's amount.

In November 6, 2015, the company made a major change in the objective situation based on the conclusion of the labor contract, resulting in the termination of the labor contract because of the failure of the labor contract. After Lee asked the company to pay the year-end bonus in 2015, it failed to appeal to the local labor dispute arbitration committee. After mediation, the company paid 80% of Li's annual bonus.

Comment: the current law does not stipulate that the employer must issue the year-end bonus, but the unit shall pass the rules and regulations according to its own operating conditions. Labor contract Agreed to decide whether to issue and how to distribute. Therefore, according to the ninetieth provision of the Supreme People's Court on the interpretation of the Civil Procedure Law of the people's Republic of China, Worker We should first bear the burden of proof for the employer's year-end bonus system.

After the workers show the corresponding evidence, the unit shall bear the burden of proof on the specific conditions, the form of payment and the amount of the annual bonus. In this case, although the company's remuneration management system The annual performance appraisal cycle is determined from January 1st to December 31st of the year. However, the company still issued the year-end bonus in 2012 when Li entered the office in less than one assessment cycle, so the company could not be established when Li's departure time was less than one assessment cycle without paying the year-end award.

Secondly, the salary management system of the company itself is unreasonable. It is invalid for employers to absolve themselves from their responsibilities and exclude the rights of workers. Third, the year-end bonus department is an affirmation of the contribution of enterprises to employees. Li worked for more than 10 months in 2015. It was unfair for the unit to terminate labor relations in the case of non staff and workers, and not to pay the year-end bonus.

Related links:

In September 28, 2015, Hui Mou went to Rizhao automobile sales and Service Co., Ltd. as sales manager. In August 3, 2016, labor relations were terminate because of disagreement with the company. Hui Hui applied for arbitration to the local labor and personnel dispute arbitration commission on the ground that the company owed overtime payment, and asked for an overtime payment of 39022 yuan.

After the trial, the Arbitration Commission held that the labor dispute mediation and Arbitration Law stipulates that if a labor dispute arises, the party shall have the responsibility to provide evidence for his own proposition. 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. Workers who advocate overtime work should provide relevant evidence of overtime.

Hui Mou asked the auto sales company to pay overtime fees, but the company did not recognize the authenticity of the printed wages list and attendance table submitted by Hui. In addition, Hui did not submit further evidence, such as the source, authenticity and original of the evidence. Because Hui didn't fulfill the initial burden of proof for the overtime payment it claimed, the arbitration commission could not follow the principle of inversion of burden of proof, requiring the company to submit relevant attendance and salary payment. Therefore, Hui should bear the adverse consequences of proof. Finally, the Arbitration Commission ruled that Hui's arbitration request was rejected.

For more information, please pay attention to the world clothing shoes and hats and Internet cafes.