Wuxi Intermediate People's Court Releases Typical Cases of Labor and Personnel Disputes Involving Science and Technology Enterprises
Enterprises attract and use talents improperly and easily lead to disputes
read tips
A few days ago, the Intermediate People's Court of Wuxi City, Jiangsu Province released a number of typical cases involving labor and personnel disputes in technology-based enterprises, covering non-competition disputes after leaving the company, professional technical training disputes for scientific and technological talents, and high-level talent transfer disputes.
Is it reasonable for the leading talents of the "Talent Plan" to be transferred from basic R&D posts to technological process posts?
Enterprises arrange personnel to jointly develop a project, how to judge whether it violates the obligation of loyalty and confidentiality?
Are technology-based enterprises sending outstanding talents abroad to receive project training, on-site inspections, and participation in seminars, etc. considered professional technical training? Is the agreement on the service period valid?
A few days ago, the Intermediate People's Court of Wuxi City, Jiangsu Province released a batch of typical cases involving labor and personnel disputes in technology-based enterprises, hoping to help technology-based enterprises further improve the governance efficiency of labor and personnel disputes and optimize the innovation ecology of talents through the analysis of the cases.
The introduction of talents must also make good use of talents
Meng is a leading talent in the innovation field of a "talent plan" and serves as the head and deputy general manager of the R&D department of a chemical company.
In November 2017, the chemical company informed Meng that he would be transferred to the technological process post and changed to be a product manager, with other remuneration remaining unchanged.
Meng believes that his technical expertise is research and development, and he is not qualified for the position of product manager in the process post, so he refuses to be transferred.
In December 2017, the company terminated the labor contract with him on the grounds of absenteeism.
Meng Mou appealed to the court after the labor arbitration.
The court held that Meng was a professional in a certain field and had been engaged in basic research and development. The company adjusted him from the basic research and development post to the process flow post. Meng's professional scope and research field.
When the employee refused, the company insisted on reassignment, which violated the stipulations of the labor contract and was not reasonable.
In another case, Wang joined an automation company in August 2017 as the vice chairman, and the two parties signed an employment contract.
The contract stipulates the service period, payment conditions and huge security deposit terms, and it also stipulates that if Wang fails to perform the contract to the agreed number of years due to the automation company's termination of the contract, Wang should be paid according to the ratio of Wang's actual working hours to the agreed working years. a corresponding security deposit.
In November 2019, due to the adjustment of the industrial layout, the automation company unilaterally terminated the employment contract with Wang.
Wang believed that his failure to perform the contract was caused by the automation company, and the automation company should pay him a security deposit in accordance with the contract.
After applying for labor arbitration, Wang appealed to the court, and the court ruled that an automation company should pay a security deposit of 5 million yuan according to the agreement of the two parties.
Such cases show that in order to attract or retain high-tech talents, many high-tech companies will reach special agreements with high-tech talents on matters such as salary, service period, etc. Among them, performance guarantee money is a common way for companies to express their sincerity.
For this reason, the court issued a reminder that as long as such an agreement is an expression of the true intention of both parties, the content does not violate the mandatory provisions of laws and administrative regulations, and there is no fraud, coercion or taking advantage of others, it should be deemed valid.
Non-competition must balance the protection of the rights and interests of all parties
Yang, Luan, and Wu are engineers of the same optoelectronic company, and signed non-compete agreements with the optoelectronic company respectively.
Later, the three Yang resigned from the Optoelectronics Company successively, signed labor contracts with a labor service company, and were dispatched to work in companies that competed with the Optoelectronics Company.
The Optoelectronics Company believed that the three parties had breached the contract, and after applying for labor arbitration, they appealed to the court, requiring the three parties to pay the company liquidated damages for violating non-competition restrictions, which was upheld by the court.
This series of cases has released a signal to regulate concealed employment to evade non-competition obligations. Through the leading demonstration role of the referee, it guides both labor and management to establish the concept of integrity, and balances the protection of corporate business secrets with the reasonable flow of talents and technologies.
Cai in another case is another "specious" situation.
Cai is a senior engineer and works as the head of the software department of a research institute.
In 2016, the research institute reached an agreement with a technology company on the joint development of software projects, set up a research and development center, agreed to jointly develop and share intellectual property rights of the project, and jointly pay salaries, subsidies, and reimbursement expenses to researchers.
In June 2018, Cai resigned from the research institute and joined the technology company.
The Institute believes that Cai has not fulfilled the obligation of loyalty and confidentiality, and requires him to bear the liability for compensation.
After the case was brought to the court, the court ruled to reject the institute's appeal on the grounds that the project was jointly developed, shared intellectual property rights, and jointly paid remuneration, so it could not prove that Cai violated the obligation of loyalty and confidentiality during his tenure.
The court pointed out that arranging professionals to carry out technical research and jointly develop projects is a common means of cooperation between enterprises.
When an employer dispatches employees to cooperate with an external unit to develop a technical project, it should clarify the obligation of confidentiality to the employees of the unit, and do a good job in written procedures such as the identification, registration and transfer of technical materials, and even sign a non-compete agreement to prevent employees from participating in project development. Job hopping, you can also use the legal provisions of the declassification period to arrange for employees to hand over R&D work in advance to reduce the impact of technology outflow on the unit.
Training increases the value of the service period cannot be violated
Xu worked as a supplier quality engineer for an automobile factory.
In October 2019, the company sent Xu to a major overseas international company to receive one-year project training, and agreed on the service period and liquidated damages.
During the training period, Xu accepted face-to-face courses, participated in expert meetings, visited customers, communicated with suppliers and learned about related production processes.
Shortly after the international dispatch ended, Xu proposed to resign, and the two parties had a dispute over liquidated damages.
Xu believes that he has not received professional technical training, but was sent to work in an overseas international company, so the service period and liquidated damages clauses stipulated in the contract are invalid.
The court held that the training in a major overseas international company is a professional technical training, the service period agreement is valid, and Xu should pay liquidated damages.
Technology-based companies usually select outstanding talents to receive professional technical training, but professional technical training is not limited to classroom teaching, but also includes on-site teaching, field visits, participation in expert seminars, and process exchanges with upstream and downstream suppliers.
In another case, Li was an engineer of a certain unit. The two parties signed a "Training Agreement". The agreement stipulated that during the training period, the unit should bear Li's training fees, accommodation fees, transportation expenses, and grant allowances for overseas business trips, etc., and also agreed on the service period. and breach of contract.
Li completed the training in June 2017, and the training cost totaled more than 300,000 yuan.
In July 2017, Li signed a new labor contract with his unit, agreeing that the service period will end in July 2022.
In August 2019, Li did not attend work normally and did not provide labor without the permission of the unit. The unit then terminated the labor contract between the two parties due to absenteeism and demanded that Li pay liquidated damages.
The labor arbitration ruled that Li should pay more than 150,000 yuan in liquidated damages, and the results of the first and second instance judgments were consistent with the labor arbitration award.
The court held that enterprises and talents grow together.
After receiving the professional and technical training provided by the enterprise, the laborer shall provide labor for the enterprise wholeheartedly with the professional skills acquired during the agreed service period, and the agreement between the two parties shall not be ignored.
If a worker receiving professional technical training fails to provide labor for no reason, it not only violates the contract, but also violates the original intention of the unit to provide professional technical training, and should bear the corresponding liability for breach of contract.
(Worker's Daily reporter: Wang Wei)