Can Employees Receive A "Depreciation Charge For Tooling"?

In January 2014, Mr. Wu signed a labor contract with the Xi'an metro operation branch, with a term of 3 years.

After the expiry of January 2017, Mr. Wu proposed an application for resignation with the unit. However, when handling the resignation procedure, he was required to pay 40% of the tooling depreciation charge and carry out the tooling recovery. The total depreciation cost was 1440 yuan.

If Mr. Wu does not pay the depreciation fee, the unit will not do the procedures such as file pfer and so on.

Mr Wu said that the unit had ordered a complete set of tooling for himself, including more than 10 pieces in spring, summer, autumn and winter. In August last year, the unit re made its tooling. It was last November.

The new tooling really does not work for a year. According to the relevant regulations of the company, it is necessary to return the tooling for the less than one year after the use of the tooling, and to pay for the tooling.

In this regard, Xi'an Metro staff said that the Xi'an metro operation branch's clothing was divided into two categories: labor protective clothing and tooling. Labor protective clothing, including safety helmets, luminous clothing and anti smashed shoes, were provided free of charge for employees and no depreciation fees were charged.

The tooling is tailor-made for staff, and there are certain costs.

Xi'an subway staff also said that this practice is also a common practice in the same industry throughout the country.

The full-time chairman, vice chairman or member of a grass-roots trade union shall extend the term of its labor contract automatically from the date of its appointment. The extension period is equivalent to that of its term of office. The term of the labor contract which has not yet been fulfilled is shorter than that of the term of office when the chairman of the non full-time chairman, vice chairman or member is appointed, and the term of the labor contract is automatically extended to the expiration of the term of office.

Except for serious personal negligence or statutory retirement age.

Pay close attention to

Xi'an subway can ask Mr. Wu to pay for his work clothes.

There are two main types of employees' work clothes.

The first kind of work clothes belong to the labor protection articles. The labor law stipulates that the laborers have the right to obtain labor safety and health protection, and the employing units must provide workers with labor safety and health conditions and necessary labor protection supplies in line with the state regulations.

Labor protective articles are protective equipment provided by laborers in order to avoid or mitigate accidents or occupational hazards in the course of labor.

According to the forty-second provision of the law of safety in production, "the production and business units must provide labor protection articles that meet the national or industrial standards for the employees, and supervise and educate employees to wear and use them according to the rules of use."

Labor protection supplies are the obligations of employers. Therefore, workers may not be required to pay labor protection articles on their own.

The second kind of work clothes belong to appearance and appearance work clothes, mainly because some enterprises require employees to wear work clothes at work hours for their company image and job demands.

But employees wear their work clothes in order to better show the elegant demeanor of the enterprise, and help the normal production and operation of enterprises.

Therefore, such work clothes

In principle, it should also be borne by the enterprise, not by the employees themselves.

The Shanghai Higher People's court's opinions on certain issues concerning the application of the labor contract law (Shanghai Gao law [2009] 73) point out that, according to the ninth provision of the labor contract law, the employing unit shall not detain the employee's identity document when he is employed, require the laborer to provide a guarantee or collect laborers' property.

In the course of the execution of the labor contract, the laborers agree to set up the corresponding reasonable guarantee with the laborers for the purpose of preventing the property from being destroyed or destroyed by the laborers.

However, the agreement is "guarantee" for flow, liquidity, or "guarantee" for property in name. Actually, it requires laborers to purchase the property. This agreement is invalid.

It is generally believed that the employee's tooling is not a property with high unit value.

A deposit or other form of security is charged.

Although some employers have made rules and regulations according to the prescribed procedures, their provisions violate the provisions of labor laws and regulations. Therefore, the terms for collecting the depreciation expenses of the employees should be invalid.

The Xi'an metro operation branch has no legal basis for collecting the tooling depreciation fee from the employee.

On the other hand, even if the Xi'an subway can ask Mr. Wu to pay for the depreciation of his tooling, he can not threaten the procedure of not going back to work.

Because it is the legal obligation of the employer to handle the procedures for dismissing workers.

The fiftieth clause of the labor contract law clearly stipulates: "the employer should issue a proof of termination or termination of the labor contract when it terminates or terminates the labor contract, and pfers the files and social insurance relations to the laborers within fifteen days."

If the employer violates the regulations and fails to provide written proof of termination or termination of the labor contract to the laborers, according to the eighty-ninth provision of the labor contract law, it shall be ordered by the labor administrative department to correct it, and the worker shall be liable for damages if he causes damage to the worker.

[related cases] in December 18, 2012, Liu Junmei joined Anshun Longhua company as a parking administrator.

On the same day, the two sides signed a labor contract, which stipulated that Liu Junmei had a monthly salary of 1260 yuan. He was entitled to work clothes during his stay. The required work clothes were provided by Longhua company in Anshun. When he received his work clothes, he needed to pay 700 yuan as a deposit.

After entering the office, Liu Junmei paid a $700 deposit for his work clothes.

In October 31, 2013, Liu Junmei left and returned his work clothes to Anshun Longhua company.

Anshun Longhua company claims to deduct the depreciation cost of the work clothes, and the deposit for the work clothes should be returned to Liu Junmei 586.8 yuan.

Liu Junmei advocated that all deposit should be refunded.

Beijing Daxing District labor and personnel dispute arbitration committee supported Liu Junmei's claim. Anshun Longhua company appealed to Beijing Daxing District people's court to ask for no payment of Liu Junmei's work clothes deposit 700 yuan, but was not supported, and appealed to Beijing second intermediate people's court.

No. 2015 of the second court of Beijing No. 2 (No. 2), No. 03005 of the people's final word, holds that providing working clothes is one of the necessary working conditions for the staff and workers, and the employing units shall be obliged to provide them and not to charge the laborers.

Liu Junmei had paid a $700 deposit to the Anshun Longhua company, and the Anshun Longhua company has not refunded it. The original court decided that it was not inappropriate for Anshun Longhua company to refund the 700 yuan of the work clothes deposit.

Focus on two

Under what circumstances can the Xi'an subway request Mr. Wu to pay for the tooling?

In practice, whether or not the equipment that the employer has given to the employees must be returned to the units or the welfare benefits of the employees.

If there are provisions or conventions, it shall be implemented according to the stipulations or agreements.

If there is no provision or agreement, it usually tends to be the employee's welfare, and the employee has no obligation to return the work.

However, if it belongs to the unit property, the tooling is only used for lending to the employees. The unit has the right to ask the employee to return the employee at the time of his resignation, and the employee will not return or willfully damage. The unit has the right to claim compensation accordingly.

However, a reasonable depreciation charge should also be deducted if employees are not returned.

After the return of the tooling, if the unit discovers that the tooling is only reasonably damaged, it can not demand compensation from the employees. Only if the employee intentionally damages the tooling can he claim compensation.

In this case, according to the relevant regulations of the Xi'an subway, if Mr. Wu has lost the equipment of the unit, the Xi'an subway can still ask Mr. Wu to compensate for the loss of clothing, but he should also deduct the reasonable depreciation charge and not allow Mr. Wu to make full compensation.

But when Mr. Wu returned the tooling, it would be unreasonable to ask him to pay for the depreciation of his tooling.

[case law] Zhao Shufa entered the company in September 3, 2012 and worked as a security guard in Hongkou dragon dream mall.

In January 21, 2015, Zhao Shufa applied for arbitration to the Hongkou District labor and personnel dispute arbitration commission of Shanghai, requesting the company to return the clothing depreciation fee of 180 yuan. The Arbitration Commission ruled that the whole company paid 112.50 yuan for the depreciation of Zhao Shufa's clothing, and did not support the remaining requests. Zhao Shufa refused to accept the ruling and referred to the Hongkou District people's court.

Quan an company argued that Zhao Shufa did not return his work clothes, and if he returned, he could return 180 yuan, otherwise he would agree to the arbitration award.

Shanghai Hongkou District people's Court (2015) Hong Min four (min) 512nd yuan civil judgment, Zhao Shufa on the staff leave the handover sheet covered with "uniform loss, damaged, old cleaning conversion 180 yuan agreed to confirm" signed, indicating that Zhao Shufa has recognized the uniform to convert 180 yuan, now claims uniforms have returned to the company, and did not provide basis for confirmation, so the proposal is not accepted, Quan an company now agreed to arbitration this ruling, so ordered the company to pay Zhao Shufa clothing depreciation fee 112.50 yuan.

Focus on three

If Mr. Wu is willing to sign an agreement with the MTR, will the law be approved?

If the Xi'an subway does not unilaterally stipulate that Mr. Wu pays for the depreciation of the tooling, it will perform the relevant agreements signed by both parties. This law is not absolutely prohibited. However, judicial practice will strictly examine whether the relevant agreements are the true meaning of the two sides, and whether it is fair to the workers.

If the agreement is not signed voluntarily by the workers, it will not be supported by law.

[case law] in January 9, 2006, Wang Shike entered the Sales Department of Zhejiang Hua company.

In May 6, 2010, Wang Shike received two sets of suits, long sleeved shirts and short sleeved shirts to Zhejiang China company.

In May 7, 2010, Zhejiang Hua company issued a notice on the employee dress related matters in the company's OA system, which stated that the employees' collar was not recovered.

When the employee leaves office, the company will discount the price to the individual according to a certain proportion of the original price of the work clothes according to the difference of the length of service and the time of the application.

In May 14, 2010, Wang Shike confirmed reading the notice.

In July 19, 2011, Wang Shike handled the resignation procedure.

After Wang Shi Ke applied for arbitration to the labor dispute arbitration committee of Zhenhai District of Ningbo, he demanded that Zhejiang Hua company return the work clothes and deduct 360 yuan and get support.

Zhejiang Hua company appealed to the court to request the order not to return the overalls for 360 yuan.

Because the company does not deduct Wang Shike's work clothes in full, it is based on the principle of "who enjoys and who pays". According to the actual service life of Wang Shike, the company deducts it in proportion, and it is not illegal or improper.

Wang Shike replied that Wang Shike received the work clothes for several days before receiving the notice from Zhejiang China company that the price of the work clothes was discounted, but the notification did not mean that Wang Shike had no objection to the contents of the notice. Wang Shi Ke did not have the right to know and express the purchase of the overalls. Zhejiang Zhejiang company did not accept Wang Shike's return to work clothes when he dismissal Wang Shi Ke, so it was unreasonable for Zhejiang China to deduct the 360 yuan working clothes of Wang Shi Ke.

The people's Court of Zhenhai District, Ningbo, Zhejiang believes that zhe company provides workers with work clothes. When employees leave the company, the company stipulates the price of the overalls according to a certain proportion of the original price according to the length of work and the time taken by the employees, which is a unilateral stipulation issued by the Zhejiang and China company in the form of notification, without the consent of Wang Shike.

Zhejiang Hua company deducted 360 yuan from Wang Shike's work clothes, which has no legal basis.

The people's Court of Zhenhai District, Ningbo (2012) civil code No. 1260th of Ningbo town civil code No. 1260th: Wang Shike asked the Zhejiang China company to return the work clothes and deduct the money for 360 yuan, and the court supported it.

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