[Commentary] Recently, some media reported that two employees in Yangzhou City, Jiangsu Province, who refused to work overtime, caused the company to lose 120,000 yuan and was awarded a compensation of 18,000 yuan by the local court. According to the judge, according to the Labor Law of the People's Republic of China, if an enterprise encounters an emergency production task and requires the worker to work overtime, the worker must obey.
[Same period] President of Hanjiang Court High-tech Zone People's Court of Yangzhou City
(Two people) The labor contract is about to expire. In order to force the company to renew the labor contract, they know that the company ’s shipments must be inspected by them before they can leave the factory. When the company requires them to work overtime to complete the factory inspection task, they refuse to work overtime. The court compensated 15% of the losses of the enterprise (default) according to their economic earning capacity and the status of the losses, which is 18,000 yuan.
[Commentary] Once this matter was reported, it quickly aroused public opinion. Wang Tianyu, an associate researcher at the Institute of Law of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences and an expert in labor law, disagrees with the verdict.
[Same period] Wang Tianyu, associate researcher and expert in labor law, Institute of Law, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences
This judge's judgment is ridiculous. Then can I ask the other way, if the enterprise has benefited from the completion of this order, do they need to take a fixed 15% of the profits from the enterprise and give them to those who participate in (overtime) work? May I?
[Commentary] Lu Shuai, a lawyer from Beijing Bank of China Law Firm, also said that the verdict is somewhat biased.
[Same period] Attorney Lu Shuai of Beijing Bank of China Law Firm
His judgment is actually beneficial to the enterprise, but he still has some biases against Article 41 of the labor law. According to Article 41 of the Labor Law, I think it deprives the workers of the right to negotiate.
[Explanation] Wang Tianyu believes that enterprises do not have the right to force workers to work overtime. Article 31 of the Labor Law also clearly stipulates that the employer should strictly implement the labor quota standards, and may not force or disguise laborers to work overtime in disguised form.
[Same period] Wang Tianyu, associate researcher and expert in labor law, Institute of Law, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences
It should have a premise "after the employer has negotiated with the trade union and laborers due to production and operation needs." There is such a requirement, this is the first paragraph, and then the working hours are extended for special reasons. In other words, there should be a prerequisite for the unit to negotiate with the labor union and the laborer. In this case, the employee does not want to work overtime, which means that the negotiation fails, the laborer does not want to work overtime, does the enterprise have the right to force the laborer to work overtime ?
[Same period] Attorney Lu Shuai of Beijing Bank of China Law Firm
What is negotiation? Negotiation means to give consent and disagree under the equal rights of both parties. If one party does not agree, it is not called negotiation, which is actually mandatory.
[Explanation] Wang Tianyu believes that overtime in the Chinese workplace has become the norm, but companies regard it as the norm, and judges should not think it is justified.
[Same period] Wang Tianyu, associate researcher and expert in labor law, Institute of Law, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences
It can also be seen in this case that overtime work has become the norm. Originally, overtime work should exceed the normal working hours. After overtime work has become the norm, the company also believes that you should work overtime. As for the judge, how could it be thought that this is justified and should be overtime?
【Explanation】 According to the public judgment documents of the Jiangsu Court Litigation Service Network, the case has passed the second trial decision. In the second instance, the appellant company dissatisfied with the first-instance decision and requested that the appellee be jointly compensated for the appellant ’s economic loss of RMB 120,000 and bear all litigation costs in this case. However, the court of second instance rejected this and upheld the judgment of the court of first instance.
Reporter Wang Qingkai Zeng Chen Shan Lu reports
Editor in charge: [Ji Xiang]