Should The Employees "Win The Prize" Be Returned To The Company?

In December 29, 2016, Zhang Yanfang and two colleagues from Shenzhen Bote Technology Co., Ltd. participated in a customer appreciation meeting on behalf of the company. Thank you. She won the first prize of 3000 yuan in cash.

"When I went there, I didn't say that this award should be returned to the company if it was in China". Zhang Yanfang thought that the prize money should not belong to the company, so she did not return it.

In January 3rd, the administrative department of the Bote company sent Zhang Yanfang a dismissal mail.

The mail said that the $3000 earned by the company would be turned over to the public property of the company. It should not be taken up for its own sake. It was considered that Zhang Yanfang had violated the company's rules and regulations, and was determined to cancel the labor contract from January 3rd.

What do I think of this incident? I believe that although the legal relationship caused by lottery is generally recognized as an "lucky luck contract", which means that both sides of the contract take an opportunity as the subject matter of the contract, only when the opportunity arises, can one party get the corresponding interests from the other side, but her participation in the customer's reward meeting and raffle is, after all, a kind of duty behavior. The client thanked Zhang Yanfang for his company rather than the individual, and the income of Zhang Yanfang's duty performance, regardless of the size, should belong to the unit.

It is the same reason to assume that a worker is injured at a thank you meeting, which is, of course, a work-related injury.

So it is understandable that the company wants her to return the bonus.

But serious violation of discipline should be the last punishment after all means are exhausted.

According to the rules and regulations of the company, it is a matter of lifting the rule of "no harm to public interests and private interests". First of all, she can not talk about "losing money and being private". If she can give up the lottery at the return Party, of course, you can not say that she has lost the lottery to the company.

Secondly, what are the consequences for employees' "harm to the public and fat private"? There are no rules and regulations.

In short, when the two sides are divided, the company should first return the bonus strictly and inform the serious consequences of not returning it. Only when the order is invalid can it be relieved, otherwise there will be a chance.

Suspicion.

Pay close attention to

Who will win the prize in the competition?

[case replay] a real estate company in Xiamen signed an agreement with the organizers of the fifth television bowl cake competition, which agreed that the sponsor would give 10 real estate promotions to the promotion company.

The post home company sends this to lucky customers in shopping malls.

But 6 of the customers abstained because they could not get in touch with the phone.

After the real estate company assigned Jiangmou and other 6 employees on behalf of the competition.

In October 4, 2009, Jiang came to the champion in the big cake competition and won the finals of the Dongfeng Fengshen car and the seventh mid autumn champion cake champion Wang Zhong Wang contest. On the same day, he wrote "1 cars, 99 thousand and 800 yuan, 4000 yuan in cash, 1 lacquer lines (sculpture), and the king's King cake in."

In October 8th, Jiang signed the letter of authorization issued by the company. The contents are: "the client has been invited to participate in the fifth television pancakes King competition sponsored by Xiamen radio and Television Advertising Co., Ltd., and hereby entrust our staff Jiang to take part in it. Therefore, during the competition process (including participation in the Gulangyu Islet Wang Zhong Bo cake competition), the income is uniformly allocated by the company, and the company will give the client a reward according to the award results."

The next day, Jiang won the champion in the finals of champion Wang Zhong Wang and got 1 Buick Regal cars.

After that, Jiang paid two car income tax of 60160 yuan.

In October 27, 2009, the company filed a lawsuit against the Haicang District People's Court of Xiamen, requesting to confirm that Dongfeng Fengshen and Buick Regal car belonged to the legal property of the company.

Haicang court has presided over mediation for many times, and the two sides have reached a conciliation agreement as follows: Jiang's participation in the two cars owned by Bo cake is owned by the company, and the company awarded the Dongfeng Fengshen car to Jiangmou. Jiangmou has previously paid 60160 yuan for the accidental income tax to be paid by the company.

[comment] in judicial practice, we usually combine the following criteria to judge whether the employee's behavior is personal behavior or duty behavior: (1) whether the behavior is authorized by the operator or whether the employee is employed.

(2) whether behavior occurs in working hours and workplaces.

(3) whether action is carried out in the name or status of the operator.

(4) whether there is an internal connection between behavior and duty, such as whether the content of the act is a work need, whether it is in line with the purpose of the employer's employment, and whether the act has the meaning of making profits for the legal person.

Jiangmou's pie competition is undoubtedly entrusted by the company. From this perspective, prizes should be owned by the company.

But unlike the case at the beginning of this article, Zhang Yanfang won the prize because the organizers thanked the client, namely, the unit where Zhang Yanfang was in; in the custom of Bo cake, "Dai Bo" means that the invited guests did not show up, and the guests who were present on behalf of "Bo" and "Dai Bo" did not belong to the guests. The rules of the contest could only be attended by natural persons, and could not be attended by the units, and Jiang was the winner of "Wang Zhong Wang" confirmed by the organizers.

If the court decides that Jiang will win the lawsuit, it will confirm the legal facts of the competition. The Organizing Committee of the Bo cake competition does not rule out the lawsuit that "the winning is invalid", and asks Jiang to return the two cars to the Organizing Committee of the competition.

This is the "zero sum game" for the company and Jiang, so reconciliation is undoubtedly the best choice for both sides.

Focus on two

[case replay] in January 2008, Staples commerce Beijing held the 2008 annual meeting of Staples.

In the annual raffle session, Zhang Wei won the first prize "Staples China Education Fund", but the company did not honor the award to Zhang Wei.

According to the company's internal publicity materials, in 2008, the fund for China's employees was co sponsored by the founder of Staples China for a total of 5 million US dollars.

The education fund will award 1-2 places from Staples employees who have children.

In 2008, Beijing and Shanghai each had one.

If the employee receives the Education Fund Award, all the educational expenses of his children from obtaining the fund to graduate education will be borne by the fund.

In addition, the fund also accepts applications for undergraduate and postgraduate education from in-service employees and their families.

In the end, the Chaoyang Court decided that Staples would pay some education fees to the children of Zhang Wei for more than 2.2 yuan.

[comment] the core issue of this case is to determine the nature of Zhang Wei's Education Fund Award.

In this regard, Zhang Wei advocated the agreement between him and Staples commerce Beijing company, and Staples trade Beijing company advocated for the establishment of education fund between individual and Zhang Wei gift contract.

The court noted that the award of the education fund was one of various awards at the new year's annual meeting of Staples commerce Beijing company, and specifically for employees meeting specific conditions. The education fund was also established by the company's founder and managed by the financial controller of the company, not the civil act between the equal civil subjects in the usual sense. Although formally, the prize winning behavior has the characteristics of being lucky and gift, but it should be regarded as employee welfare better from the scope of the prize winners and the purpose of setting awards.

Since the foundation concerned did not register in accordance with the relevant laws and regulations, it also does not belong to the relationship between the donor and the beneficiary.

Considering that the purpose of the award is to motivate employees, the so-called fund is also managed by the chief financial officer of Staples commerce and Beijing company. Besides the award, all the other awards have been fulfilled by Staples trading Beijing company. The court finds that Zhang Wei can claim corresponding rights to Staples trading Beijing company.

At the end of each year, many enterprises will organize annual staff meetings, and draw lottery links at the annual meeting. The awards will be diversified, including annual leave, tourism, physical property, cash and so on.

In nature, annual awards should be recognized as a kind of welfare treatment provided by employees for enterprises.

Focus on three

Workers should also apply for the award.

[case replay] Guo went to Beijing science and technology company in January 4, 2011 and worked as a project engineer. The two sides signed a labor contract with a term of three years, of which the probation period lasted from January 4, 2011 to May 3, 2011.

In January 28, 2011, the annual meeting of all the workers held by the technology company was granted by Guo, who was in the trial period, and was lucky to have won the special award for the seven day tour of Jeju Island in Korea.

However, in March 18, 2011, the technology company was relieved of its labor contract on the grounds that Guo did not meet the job requirements during the probation period.

Before leaving, he asked the technology company to arrange a seven day tour of Jeju Island, Korea, or cash a special prize in cash of 2500 yuan, but refused.

The company's reason is that, according to the provisions of the probationary period, the staff should wait until the expiration of the term until the company arranges to enjoy the award of the annual meeting, and the employee will not be able to honor the award.

Guo believes that this provision is unreasonable and applies for labor arbitration.

However, the Arbitration Commission considered that Kuo's complaint was not within the scope of the labor dispute, and it refused to accept the notification.

In the trial, the science and technology company submitted the annual lottery plan and rules for the 2010 annual meeting. The rules contain "the probationary period that the employees must wait until the probation period is expired before the company can arrange to enjoy the relevant regulations of the annual annual awards and the employees who can not pay the award".

The court of first instance court of labor dispute ruled that the technology company gave Kuo a seven day tour price of 6000 yuan in Jeju Island, Korea, and the technology company refused to accept the appeal.

After the trial, the second intermediate people's Court of Beijing dismissed the appeal and upheld the final judgment of the original judgment.

[commented] when a worker is on the job, he or she will leave the company after the award. In addition to the award, the employer will still have to continue to perform the obligation of payment.

However, the rules and regulations formulated by enterprises should be fair and reasonable, and workers should be informed in advance.

The annual awards are the welfare benefits that the enterprises give to their employees. We should ensure the implementation of "equal pay for equal work". Both the staff members, the contract appointing staff and the workers during the probation period are equally entitled to participate in the lucky draw at the annual meeting of the company. The company failed to provide evidence to prove that Guo knew the lottery plan and rules, while Guo did not recognize it, so the court could not accept the proposition of the technology company.

Considering the fact that Guo has already left the company, in conjunction with Guo's own wishes, the court decided that the technology company will cash the "seven day tour award of South Korea Jeju Island double" in cash, which is more conducive to the realization of the legitimate rights and interests of Guo.

For more information, please pay attention to the world clothing shoes and hats net report.