Units Lose Their Year-End Awards On The Grounds Of "Bad Handling Of Relations"

In the enterprise rules and regulations, the year-end bonus is prescribed, and the year-end bonus is not the sole purpose of the enterprise.

In case of labor disputes, the employer shall bear the burden of proof, and the provisions of the unit shall be

The results should also stand up to rigorous testing.

In October 2008, because of the reform of the national telecommunications system, Yang Hong (a pseudonym) was assigned to a company for financial work.

The two sides signed the labor contract, with no fixed period.

The company stipulates that the worker's year-end bonus standard is 5 months' salary, and is determined according to the assessment coefficient and my salary.

The assessment coefficient is:...

The basic performance appraisal coefficient is 0.8, and the incompetent assessment coefficient is 0.4.

Yang Hong's assessment in 2008 was basically competent, receiving the year-end award of 4500 yuan; the 2009 annual assessment was incompetent, receiving the year-end award of 10400 yuan; the 2010 assessment was incompetent, and the end of year award was 7800 yuan.

In November 25, 2010, Yang Hong filed a petition for labor arbitration, requiring the company to reissue the year-end award and many other requests. Yang Hong's arbitration application was rejected.

Yang Hongsui filed a civil suit and asked...

The company reissued the year-end bonus of 21500 yuan in 2008, 15600 yuan in the end of 2009, and 18200 yuan in the end of 2010.

During the first instance, Yang Hong changed the calculation base of his requests from 5200 yuan to 6499 yuan, and changed his request.

There are two controversies between the two sides. One is the wage base, the two is whether the assessment result is fair or not.

Yang Hong said that when he arrived at the company in early October 2008, his monthly salary was 6499 yuan, which lasted until June 2009 and the final monthly salary was 5200 yuan.

The company did not tell the wage system and fixed job placement. Yang Hong could only see his salary from the mail.

After several requests, the company issued a notice to Yang Hong in August 3, 2009 about a post of a China Telecom branch about the determination of post categories for the pfer of staff, comrade Yang Hong, of whom Yang Hongding was a professional nine post, but did not specify the wage standard.

According to Yang Hong, according to the company's year-end bonus standard, it is 5 months' salary, and its annual bonus should be 6499 yuan and 5. After deducting the actual value of 4500 yuan in 2008, it should be reissued 27995 yuan. After deducting the 10400 yuan actually issued in 2009, it should also be reissued 22095 yuan. After deducting the 7800 yuan actually issued in 2010, it should also be issued a 24695 yuan.

The company said that there is no professional nine posts in the salary system. In view of the salary standard of a nine branch of a China Telecom, which is about 5200 yuan, the wage standard of Yang Hong is determined to be 5200 yuan.

The company claimed that Yang Hong should not be awarded the year-end bonus to Yang Hongwei. In 2008, Yang Hongwei was officially appointed and appointed, and the salary base was tentatively set at 4500 yuan. The year-end bonus was 4500 yuan =4500 x 5 12 12 3 months (actually on the job) * the basic qualified assessment coefficient was 0.8; in 2009, the year-end bonus was 10400 yuan, =3900 x 5, the incompetent test coefficient 0.4; the 2010 year-end bonus was 7800 yuan yuan XX X.

Whether the assessment results are fair or not.

The company provides "the minutes of the trade union committee meeting", "Interim Measures for performance management", "Remuneration and post system", "notice on annual performance appraisal" and "annual assessment results" and so on. It shows that the company conducts monthly and annual assessment of employees according to the performance appraisal system adopted by the trade union, and according to the results of the examination, the performance salary is calculated.

The assessment was carried out in the company's OA system, including Yang Hong's scoring and leadership scoring. The general employees could not see the process, but they could see the result.

Yang Hong did not approve of the authenticity of the above evidence, and thought that although he scored self evaluation, he did not know the process of examination, assessment procedures and the formation process of the examination results.

Yang Hong objected that the company's explanation was the result.

The company explained in court that Yang Hong had been criticized for being incompetent for two reasons. First, he had not handled well with the leadership relations, and the leader had not been obedient to Mr. Yang. Two, it was not well handled with his colleagues.

Yang Hong refused to recognize this.

Yang Hong thought that there was a violation of the accounting law in the company's financial work, and it was not retaliated against the leadership's requirements.

The court of first instance held that the employer should not deduct or pay wages without any reason.

The employer shall bear the burden of proof as a result of the labor dispute decided by the employer in reducing labor remuneration and calculating the working life of the worker.

In this case, Yang Hong was assessed by the company, and the monthly salary and year-end bonus were reduced according to the assessment results. However, the company did not provide enough evidence to inform Yang Hong of the specific examination conditions and the basis of the examination results, nor did it provide the evidence of Yang Hong's "bad handling of leadership relations and bad relations with colleagues" or Yang Hong's existence of other violations of company rules and regulations. Therefore, the court held that the company's performance salary, post salary and year-end bonus were reduced by Yang Hong, which was supported by Yang Hong's request.

With regard to Yang Hong's salary base, the court held that Yang Hong pferred from the original company to the present company, and the company paid the corresponding remuneration for the post of Yang Hong in 2009. It is not inappropriate, so the request for 2009 and after shall be 5200 yuan.

With respect to the 2008 year-end award, the court believed that Yang Hong was arranged to work for the company because of the reform of the national telecommunications system. In the labor contract, the company also recognized Yang Hong's working hours in the original company as the company's working time, and the company was deducted by Yang Hong for three months in 2008.

According to the deficiency.

The court of first instance ruled: first, the company paid Yang Hong a year-end bonus of 27995 yuan (6499 x 5-4500) in 2008, 15600 yuan (5200 x 5-10400) at the end of 2009, 18200 yuan (5200 x 5-7800) in 2010, and merit pay in 2009.

Total: 103353.8 yuan.

Two, dismiss Yang Hong's other requests.

After the first trial, both sides appealed to the second instance court.

During the second instance, the company and Yang Hongjun provided three sets of evidence and interacted with each other.

Among them, the focus of the question is whether the company's determination of Yang Hong's year-end bonus is based on fact and law.

The court of second instance held that the thirteenth interpretation of the Supreme People's court's interpretation of several issues concerning the application of law in labor dispute cases stipulates that 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 working life of workers.

The performance appraisal method adopted by the employer according to the legal procedure is used to assess the employees, and the performance salary is calculated according to the results of the examination.

The company's submission of evidence can prove that the performance appraisal method is in line with the provisions of the law and is not inappropriate.

The company's submission of evidence two can prove that the examination result has not been revised, but because the assessment involves reducing the basic rights of the laborers, such as the remuneration of the laborers, the burden of proof should be borne by the employer in accordance with the law. It should include not only the examination results, but also the procedural questions of the workers' right to know and the right of defense.

In this case, the company performed some defects in the relevant procedures, and in the first instance, it claimed that Yang Hong's assessment was incompetent, mainly because of the bad relationship between Yang Hong and the leadership, the disobedience of the leadership's work arrangements, and the bad relationship with his colleagues, but they failed to provide sufficient evidence to support his assertion.

Therefore, the court of first instance decided that the company should reduce Yang Hong's merit pay, post salary and year-end bonus. According to the lack of statements and objections made by the company to the relevant deduction amount, the court upheld Yang Hong's relevant opinions.

The issue of year-end bonus for 2008.

Three of the evidence provided by the company can prove that Yang Hong's salary in October 2008 has been included in the 1~9 year's year-end bonus, which was accepted by the hospital in October 2008. Therefore, the company received the year-end bonus in 2008 at the time of the company's entry into the company.

In view of the fact that during the second instance, the company voluntarily paid Yang Hong's year-end award of $27995, which was originally judged by the original judge, the hospital was allowed to do so in 2008.

The second instance verdict is as follows: dismissing the appeal and upheld the original judgment.

This judgment is final.

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