I was also defrauded of a deposit of 20,000 yuan by Qingdao Sanli Group. Zhang Xuelian, the resigning personnel department, tricked me into signing a deposit waiver statement. Later, I saw that some employees filed a lawsuit and lost the case because of this statement. If you resign, you won't be paid a salary or a deposit of 20,000 yuan.
While you are still employed, 20% of your salary will be deducted and it will be given to you in 15 years. Thank you for leaving. It is said that there are still many college students who have been deceived.
Search Qingdao Sanli Civil Judgment yourself. A look at the court's decision will tell you what is actually happening. Although Qingdao Sanli can exploit legal loopholes, liars are liars. Rogues are literate, as long as they know more about rogue companies and stay away from them.
Civil Judgment of the Second Instance of the Labor Dispute between Xu Pengfei and Qingdao Sanli Group Co., Ltd.
Qingdao Intermediate People’s Court of Shandong Province
Civil Judgment
(2018) Lu 02 Minzhong No. 7764
Appellant (plaintiff in the original trial): Xu Pengfei, female, born on March 22, 1992, Han nationality, living in Muping District, Yantai City.
Entrusted litigation agent: Sui Xiaoyan, lawyer at Shandong Juncheng Renhe (Qingdao) Law Firm.
Entrusted litigation agent: Liu Yanhong, an intern lawyer at Shandong Juncheng Renhe (Qingdao) Law Firm.
Appellant (defendant in the original trial): Qingdao Sanli Group Co., Ltd., domiciled at North No. 2 East Road, Qingda Industrial Park, Chengyang District, Qingdao City.
Legal representative: Zhang Qinghua, Chairman.
The entrusted litigation agent: Takada Tian, ??female, is a staff member of Qingdao Sanli Group Co., Ltd.
Appellee (defendant in the original trial): Qingdao Sanli Morris Hotel Co., Ltd., domiciled in Qingda Industrial Park, Chengyang District, Qingdao City.
Legal representative: Wang Yuzhen, chairman of the board.
The entrusted litigation agent: Takada Tian, ??female, is a staff member of Qingdao Sanli Group Co., Ltd.
Appellee (defendant in the original trial): Qingdao Sanli Sino-German Water Equipment Co., Ltd., domiciled in the north of Gongye Road, No. 2 Jihongtan Street, Chengyang District, Qingdao City.
Legal representative: Cui Jihong, chairman of the board.
The entrusted litigation agent: Takada Tian, ??female, is a staff member of Qingdao Sanli Group Co., Ltd.
The appellant Xu Pengfei and the appellant Qingdao Sanli Group Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Sanli Group) were involved in a dispute with the appellees Qingdao Sanli Morris Hotel Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Morris Hotel) and Qingdao Sanli Zhongdemei Water Equipment Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Zhongdemei Company) was dissatisfied with the civil judgment (2017) Lu 0214 Minchu No. 1323 of the Chengyang District People’s Court of Qingdao City and appealed to this court. After this court filed the case, it formed a collegial panel to hear the case in accordance with the law. Sui Xiaoyan and Liu Yanhong are the entrusted litigation representatives of the appellant Xu Pengfei, Cui Jihong, the legal representative of the appellee Zhongdemei Company, and *** are the same attorneys of the appellant Sanli Group, the appellee Morris Hotel, and Zhongdemei Company. Attorney Takada Tian attended the court to participate in the lawsuit. The case has now been concluded.
Xu Pengfei’s appeal request: The first-instance judgment should be revoked and the judgment should be changed to support all Xu Pengfei’s first-instance litigation claims; the first- and second-instance litigation fees should be borne by Sanli Group. Facts and reasons: First, the court of first instance made a factual error in determining Xu Pengfei’s average salary for the 12 months before his resignation. The focus of the determination of Xu Pengfei's average salary for the 12 months before his resignation was the pre-incentive bonus. The court of first instance elaborated on the authenticity, nature, and whether it should be paid and other issues of the pre-incentive, and ultimately determined that the pre-incentive bonus was not a component of the total salary. In part, the assertion that the payment conditions stated in the pre-award voucher were not met is wrong and seriously inconsistent with the facts. Xu Pengfei believes that employees have the right to receive wages and bonuses, and bonuses are an integral part of employees' wages. In the process of setting the employee salary structure, Sanli Group took advantage of its advantageous position and deliberately set up "overlord clauses", and the bonuses that should be paid out every month were presented as pre-bonuses, deliberately deducting bonuses from workers. Violates the legitimate rights and interests of workers.
However, the court of first instance did not ascertain the facts of the case and only determined that the pre-award bonus was not part of labor wages on the grounds that the employee signed a pre-award voucher. This was an error in the determination of the facts. In the first instance, Xu Pengfei claimed that Sanli Group’s unpaid salary of 19,389 yuan from 2013 to 2016 should be the so-called pre-incentive payment, which is part of the salary, and Sanli Group should pay the full amount to Xu Pengfei. The court of first instance only decided that Sanli Group should pay Xu Pengfei a bonus of 6,786.15 yuan, which was not in compliance with the law. Because the court of first instance misidentified Xu Pengfei’s total salary, it also led to the error in requiring Sanli Group to pay economic compensation for illegal termination of the labor contract. The economic compensation claimed by Xu Pengfei was 23,597 yuan [3,371 yuan × 7 months]. The court of first instance Only 19,833.31 yuan [2,833.33 yuan × 7 months] was recognized. 2. The court of first instance applied the law incorrectly in determining Xu Pengfei’s paid annual leave wages. In accordance with the provisions of Article 4 (6) and Article 10 (1) of the "Regulations on the Composition of Total Wages" and Article 2 and Article 5 (3) of the "Regulations on Employees' Paid Annual Leave", enterprises Employees who have worked continuously for more than one year are entitled to paid annual leave. Employees enjoy the same wage income during annual leave as during normal working hours. For the number of untaken annual leave days that the employee should have taken, the employer shall pay annual leave wages based on 300 of the employee's daily wage income. In the seven years from 2009 to 2016, Xu Pengfei should have taken vacations but Sanli Group did not arrange vacations. It required Xu Pengfei to be paid annual vacation wages based on 300 of Xu Pengfei's daily salary income, which was essentially a matter of protecting employees' rights to rest and vacations. According to national administrative regulations, annual leave wages are wages paid under special circumstances when the employer performs state or social obligations and constitutes an integral part of the total wages of workers. Xu Pengfei’s request should be supported. However, the court of first instance argued that the employee’s claim to the employer that paid annual leave wages were only a welfare benefit enjoyed in accordance with the law and should be subject to the arbitration statute of limitations was an error in the application of law. In the first instance, Xu Pengfei claimed that the paid annual leave salary was 10,849 yuan [3,371 yuan ÷ 21.75 × 7 (2009 to 2016) × 5 days × 200], but the court of first instance only ordered Sanli Group to pay Xu Pengfei 521.07 yuan [2,833.33 yuan ÷ 21.75×2×200]. 3. The court of first instance was wrong in determining that the advance payment received by Sanli Group from Xu Pengfei for dining was not a labor dispute. The fact is that Sanli Group promised free food, clothing and accommodation when recruiting. Morris Hotel and Sanli Group are affiliated companies. Xu Pengfei was arranged by Sanli Group to dine at Morris Hotel. It was not Xu Pengfei's independent choice. , but one of the working conditions promised by Sanli Group. Therefore, the relationship between Xu Pengfei and Morris Hotel was not a catering service contract, and the court of first instance was wrong in characterizing the dispute between the two parties. Therefore, the agreement between Morris Hotel and Xu Pengfei that employees who leave midway should bear the meal expenses personally is not binding on Xu Pengfei, and Xu Pengfei should not bear the obligation to pay for meals. Xu Pengfei asked Morris Hotel to return the advance payment for the meal, which complied with the provisions of the law. The court of first instance refused to handle the matter on the grounds that it was not a labor dispute, which was an error in the application of the law. 4. The court of first instance was wrong in determining that the charitable funds paid by Xu Pengfei did not fall within the scope of labor dispute settlement. The fact is that Sanli Group took advantage of its advantageous position to directly deduct Xu Pengfei's salary in the name of paying charity funds, regardless of Xu Pengfei's consent or not. Xu Pengfei did not pay voluntarily. Moreover, after the charity fund was paid, Sanli Group did not disclose the management and use of the fund to Xu Pengfei. Xu Pengfei had no idea where the so-called "charity fund" that had been withheld went. Therefore, the "charitable fund" paid by Xu Pengfei is an act of Sanli Group deducting Xu Pengfei's salary, which is a labor dispute. Xu Pengfei's request for Sanli Group to pay 1,842.1 yuan in charity funds from 2015 to 2016 should be supported. In summary, the first-instance judgment was wrong and we request that the judgment be changed in accordance with the law.
Sanli Group argued that the judgment of the first and first instance courts exceeded the claims and violated the principle of no suit or no action, which was an error in the application of law.
1. Xu Pengfei did not request Sanli Group to pay advance reward money in his lawsuit. Xu Pengfei requested that "the defendant pay the plaintiff's unpaid wages of 19,389 yuan from 2013 to 2016." However, the first instance of the first instance judgment "ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff advance bonus." The reward amount is 6,786.15 yuan", which exceeds Xu Pengfei's lawsuit request. 2. The court of first instance did not comprehensively examine the nature of the "pre-award bonus", the objects of the award, and the conditions for payment achievements during the trial and determination. According to the content stated in the "Statement" on the back of the pre-award voucher, the pre-award bonus is a credit guarantee incentive measure that reflects the company's independent management rights and should be protected by law. When Xu Pengfei was working at Sanli Group, he seriously violated Sanli Group's factory rules and regulations. He was absent from work without any handover without any reason, so this award is invalid. On the one hand, the court of first instance determined that pre-incentives were not wages, and on the other hand, it applied the fault principle to grant certain pre-incentives to employees who resigned midway, which was wrong. 2. Sanli Group has arranged for Xu Pengfei to take paid annual leave and should not pay Xu Pengfei paid annual leave wages. 3. Prepayment for meals does not fall within the scope of labor dispute cases and should not be handled in this case. 1. Xu Pengfei signed the "Notice on the Internal Management System of Qingdao Sanli Group" when he took office. The notice clearly stipulated that because the law does not stipulate that employers must provide free meals to employees, the company does not provide free meals to employees, but the company For employees who have fully fulfilled the labor contract period, we can bear the dining expenses at Morris Hotel during their working period as a reward for the employees' faithful performance of the labor contract. If the labor contract period is not fulfilled for any reason, the employee will not be responsible for the dining expenses at the Morris Hotel during the work period, and will not be held responsible for any disputes over meal expenses with the Morris Hotel. 2. Xu Pengfei signed a "dining contract" when he joined the company, and he personally wrote a "pre-emptive dining application" and paid 20,000 yuan to Morris Hotel in advance. All expenses incurred were settled by Xu Pengfei and Morris Hotel, and Sanli Group has nothing to do with it. Moreover, Article 2 of the dining contract clearly stipulates that when the contract is terminated, the actual settlement will be made, and any excess will be refunded or less will be compensated. 4. Sanli Group has never forced Xu Pengfei to pay charity funds, nor has it been deducted from his salary. It does not fall within the scope of accepting labor dispute cases and should not be handled in this case. 5. The reason for Xu Pengfei's resignation was not that Sanli Group failed to pay him social insurance, but was caused by his own unexcused absence from work. Therefore, Sanli Group should not pay Xu Pengfei economic compensation. Xu Pengfei was absent from work for no reason without any work handover. Sanli Group repeatedly urged him to come back to work or hand over work, but Xu Pengfei ignored him. Because he seriously violated factory regulations and disciplines, he was dealt with according to the system and was legally terminated. The labor contract relationship with Xu Pengfei, announcements were posted, and I was notified by phone, so Sanli Group should not pay Xu Pengfei economic compensation. To sum up, the first-instance judgment found the facts unclear and applied the law incorrectly. We request support for Sanli Group’s litigation claims.
The defense opinions of Morris Hotel and Sino-German American Company are consistent with those of Sanli Group.
Sanli Group’s appeal request: the first-instance judgment should be revoked and all of Xu Pengfei’s claims should be dismissed; the first- and second-instance litigation fees should be borne by Xu Pengfei. Facts and Reasons: First instance, the first-instance judgment exceeded Xu Pengfei’s claims and violated the principle of no suit or no action, which was an error in the application of law. 1. Xu Pengfei did not request Sanli Group to pay a pre-reward bonus in the lawsuit. Xu Pengfei requested that "the defendant pay the plaintiff's unpaid wages of 19,389 yuan from 2013 to 2016." However, the first instance ordered that "the defendant pay the plaintiff a pre-reward bonus of 6,786.15 yuan." Yuan", which exceeds Xu Pengfei's lawsuit claims. Sanli Group did not owe Xu Pengfei wages, and the court of first instance also determined that the pre-incentive bonus was not wages, but an additional conditional bonus in addition to wages. Therefore, the court of first instance exceeded Xu Pengfei's claims and should be revoked. 2. The court of first instance did not comprehensively examine the nature of the "pre-award bonus", the reward objects, and the conditions for payment of achievements. The "Statement" on the back of the pre-award bonus voucher clearly stated: Pre-award bonus is an additional reward given to employees with conditions. Article 2) of the statement states: This reward is an additional reward for the company to encourage employees to fulfill contracts, agreements, commitments, etc. and abide by contracts and be trustworthy. The employee's salary, monthly salary, annual salary, overtime pay, various subsidies, and various All rewards such as class rewards have nothing to do with income.
This award is only valid for reputable employees. Article 6) states: This award will be invalid as long as the recipient leaves the job midway regardless of the circumstances and reasons (such as failure to sign a labor contract, failure to pay pension insurance, etc.). Article 5) states: If the recipient violates national laws and regulations and is punished according to law, or violates factory regulations and disciplines and is fired, suspended, dismissed, removed from the company, etc., this award will be invalid. And it is clearly stated in the "Pre-award Validity Conditions" on the front: "The pre-award will be valid only if the awardee meets the following conditions, otherwise it will be invalid: 1) Sign a labor contract of 20 years or more and work continuously for more than 20 years. The contract expires and the pre-award is pre-awarded." If the employee has signed a labor contract of 20 years or more and has worked continuously for more than 20 years, the pre-reward will be valid if the employee has been awarded for 20 years or more but has reached the statutory retirement age (if Party A and Party B agree on the retirement age, the time agreed upon by both parties will be the time limit). 2) If a labor contract is not signed or the labor contract period is less than 20 years, and there is no substantial and effective credit commitment or credit guarantee commitment to the company, the pre-reward will remain in the company until the statutory retirement age. It will be valid only if you have worked continuously for more than 25 years, and it will be invalid if you leave midway. 3) If the labor contract has expired and the pre-award is less than 20 years, the pre-award will be invalid. 4) If the labor contract has not expired, the pre-award will be invalid. "It can be seen that the nature of pre-reward bonus is a kind of credit guarantee incentive measure. It is an original business incentive mechanism created by enterprises to attract and retain talents based on the confidentiality of their own high-tech patented products. It is in line with the legal system of enterprises operating independently and formulating their own operating systems. Framework requirements are not prohibited by our country’s laws and regulations and should be promoted by society and protected by national laws. When Xu Pengfei was working at Sanli Group, he seriously violated Sanli Group's factory rules and regulations. He was absent from work without any handover without any reason, so this award is invalid. On the one hand, the court of first instance determined that pre-incentives were not wages, and on the other hand, it applied the fault principle to grant certain pre-incentives to employees who resigned midway, and to grant certain pre-incentives in proportion to the employee’s working years. This application of the law was wrong, and it also interfered with the enterprise. The legal operating system of independent operation and self-development has affected the development of enterprises. 2. The reason for Xu Pengfei's resignation was not that Sanli Group failed to pay him social insurance, but because he was absent from work without reason. Xu Pengfei should not be paid economic compensation. 1. The court of first instance found that the reason for Xu Pengfei’s resignation was that the company failed to pay him social insurance, which was inconsistent with the facts. After Xu Pengfei joined the company, his employer repeatedly asked him to pay social insurance. Leaders at all levels talked to Xu Pengfei many times to persuade him to pay social insurance. This was confirmed by his supervisor and multiple witnesses. However, Xu Pengfei delayed the application for various reasons so that he could get cash for the part he did not pay for social insurance. Xu Pengfei was absent from work for no reason without any work handover. Sanli Group repeatedly urged him to come back to work or hand over work, but Xu Pengfei ignored him. Because he seriously violated factory regulations and disciplines, Sanli Group should not pay Xu Pengfei financial compensation. gold. 2. The "Result/Termination of Labor Contract Report" submitted by Xu Pengfei to the court of first instance was forged (the official seal on the report did not match the official seal of Sanli Group), which was illegal and should not be accepted. Sanli Group did not issue the "Result/Termination of Labor Contract Report" for Xu Pengfei. 3. Sanli Group has arranged for Xu Pengfei to take paid annual leave and should not pay Xu Pengfei paid annual leave wages. To sum up, the first-instance judgment found the facts unclear and applied the law incorrectly. We requested that the judgment be changed to support Sanli Group’s appeal.
Xu Pengfei argued that 1. Sanli Group’s statement of pre-bonus payments was against the mandatory legal provisions of the national labor law and was an invalid clause that could not bind Xu Pengfei. Pre-bonus bonus is an integral part of the total salary. Employees have the right to receive wages and bonuses. Bonuses are an integral part of employee wages. In the process of setting the employee salary structure, Sanli Group took advantage of its advantageous position and deliberately set up "overlord clauses", and the bonuses that should be paid out every month were presented as pre-bonuses, deliberately deducting bonuses from workers. Violates the legitimate rights and interests of workers. 2. In the first instance, Xu Pengfei submitted a labor contract termination report provided by Sanli Group to prove that the real reason for the termination of the contract between the two parties was "excessive overtime work, low wages, and no insurance."
Xu Pengfei left Sanli Group because the company failed to pay his social insurance premiums. Xu Pengfei was not at fault for terminating the labor contract between the two parties. Xu Pengfei submitted a labor contract termination report provided by Sanli Group in the first instance. Sanli Group stated that it would be implemented after the trial, but did not submit any implementation opinions. The first instance found that the evidence was authentic, legal, and relevant, and was correctly adopted. Sanli Group should bear the legal responsibility and consequences of failure to provide evidence. 3. The labor contract termination report provided by Sanli Group proves that the real reason for the termination of the contract between the two parties was "excessive overtime work, low wages, and no insurance payment." There is no evidence to prove that Xu Pengfei has been arranged to take paid annual leave. From 2009 to 2016, Xu Pengfei was supposed to take vacation but Sanli Group did not arrange it. The company requested to pay Xu Pengfei 300 yuan of his daily salary as annual vacation wages, which complied with the law and should be supported.
The statements and opinions of Morris Hotel and Sino-German American Company are consistent with those of Sanli Group.
Xu Pengfei filed a lawsuit with the court of first instance and requested: 1. Order Sanli Group, Morris Hotel, and Sino-German American Company to pay Xu Pengfei’s unpaid wages of 19,389 yuan from 2013 to 2016, and to pay 19,389 yuan for Xu Pengfei’s unpaid wages from 2015 to 2016. The annual charity fund is 1,842.1 yuan, the deposit payment is 20,000 yuan, the economic compensation for the termination of the labor contract is 23,597 yuan, and the paid annual leave salary is 10,849 yuan; 2. The litigation costs of this case are borne by Sanli Group, Morris Hotel, and Sino-German American Company.
Facts determined by the court of first instance:
Evidence submitted by the parties, cross-examination opinions of the parties and the evidence accepted by the court of first instance:
1. Xu Pengfei submitted the receipt and one copy of the explanation, which proves that Xu Pengfei paid a dining advance payment of 20,000 yuan to the Morris Hotel on December 23, 2009, and requested the Morris Hotel to return it. Since Sanli Group is the company in charge of Morris Hotel, Sanli Group should bear joint and several liability for the return of the above debts. This request has nothing to do with Sino-German American Company. Morris Hotel cross-examined and stated that it had no objection to the authenticity of the receipt, but the receipt belonged to the catering service contract between Xu Pengfei and our company, and was not a labor dispute and should not be dealt with in this case. If Xu Pengfei feels that he has not eaten, he should make a claim to our company in accordance with the law. The authenticity of the explanation needs to be verified after court. Even if the evidence is true, it does not reflect the relationship between Sanli Group and our company and cannot prove the matters it proves. Sanli Group cross-examined and stated that it could not confirm the authenticity of the receipt, but it had nothing to do with our company. Our company did not directly collect the relevant payments, and Sanli Group and Morris Hotel were financially independent of each other. The description of the cross-examination opinion is the same as that of Morris Hotel. The Sino-German American Company testified that it had nothing to do with our company.
The court of first instance held that the receipts in this set of evidence were authentic, legal, and relevant and could be used as a basis for determining the facts of the case. The authenticity and probative effect of the description must be determined in conjunction with other evidence. The date recorded on the receipt is December 13, 2009. It states that the payee is Xu Pengfei, the amount is 20,000 yuan, and the purpose of collection is "prepayment for dining", with the "Special Financial Seal of Qingdao Sanli Hotel Co., Ltd." stamped on it. The description reads: "Qingdao Sanli Sino-German Water Equipment Co., Ltd. is a holding subsidiary of Qingdao Sanli Group Co., Ltd. specializing in the production and operation of water supply equipment. Sanli Group has administrative functions for it." There are three stamps on it. Seals of Lee Group and Sino-German and American companies.