Who has been warned by the authoritative department in issuing "996" typical cases

　　Bumper harvest

　　Is the "996" work system illegal?

If the worker refuses to work overtime illegally, can the unit terminate the labor contract?

Recently, the Ministry of Human Resources and Social Security and the Supreme People’s Court jointly issued the second batch of typical labor and personnel disputes, giving answers to such questions.

　　The "996" work system refers to a work system that starts at 9 a.m., leaves at 9 p.m., and rests for 1 hour (or less than 1 hour) at noon and evening, totaling more than 10 hours of work and 6 days a week.

This is obviously contrary to the "Labor Law" stipulating that the working hours of workers do not exceed eight hours a day and the average weekly working hours do not exceed 44 hours.

　　Although there have been positive signs this year, some Internet companies announced the cancellation of "small and large weeks", but many have not been able to return to a standardized state.

In this case, as the two authoritative departments of the Ministry of Human Resources and Social Security and the Supreme People's Court jointly issued typical cases involving "996", it is of special significance.

　　In one case, the rules and regulations of the express company involved clearly stipulated that the working hours were from 9 am to 9 pm, six days a week.

Zhang refused to work overtime on the grounds that his working hours seriously exceeded the upper limit prescribed by law, and the courier company terminated his labor contract on the ground that Zhang did not meet the employment conditions during the probation period.

The labor arbitration agency ruled that the courier company involved paid Zhang 8,000 yuan in compensation for illegally terminating the labor contract, and notified the labor security supervision agency of the case, and the courier company was ordered to make corrections and given warnings and other penalties.

　　The express delivery companies involved have encountered multiple punishments and paid the price for their illegal behavior.

The reason why the company involved was willing to give in was not that it took the initiative to do so, but that the employee first said no to the "996" work system, and then the company cancelled the "996" unreasonable work system. .

　　The Ministry of Human Resources and Social Security and the Supreme Law issued "996" typical cases, which first taught companies that implement the "996" work system.

Once an employee says "no" to the company's "996" work system, even if the company finds more reasons to sanction "rebellious" employees, it will be difficult to succeed.

Because the "996" work system is illegal, employees will use this as a basis to defend their rights, and the company will undoubtedly fail.

　　Secondly, it also teaches the employees of enterprises under the "996" work system.

As an employee of an enterprise, you must be aware that the "996" work system is illegal, and you must have the courage to defend your rights in accordance with the law.

When employees have legal awareness and rights protection actions, they can not only protect their own rights, but also force the company to standardize, which is conducive to the protection of other employees' rights to rest and vacation.

This case injects confidence in protecting rights for employees of other companies.

　　Third, it also taught labor arbitration and judicial institutions a lesson.

Although the "996" work system is obviously illegal, because it is more common in some industries and is affected by concepts such as "the law does not account for the public", the "996" work system often appears as a topic of dispute or dispute case, which does not rule out affecting certain arbitrations The perception of institutions or judicial authorities.

The purpose of publishing the case is to remind the adjudication agency to handle the case in accordance with the law.

　　Although this typical case itself and the release of the "one high-level" case can generate positive energy, especially public release has guiding significance throughout the country, but we must clearly understand that we cannot rely on individual cases to repel the "996" work system. The "996" work system should disappear through active inspections and corrections.

The professional analysis and guidance of the two authoritative departments on this typical case is worthy of careful reading by all parties.