1. 特殊情形下即使未簽書面勞動合同,也可不予支持員工主張未訂立書面勞動合同二倍工資差額的請求。在該案例中,雖然員工與公司未簽訂書面勞動合同,但法院認為:(1)公司辦理了人事招錄手續、對勞動關系進行備案登記、繳納了社會保險,在主觀意圖上并無明顯故意;(2)在形式上,相關書面文件和備案登記已包含書面勞動合同的實質內容,達到了確定雙方權利義務的法律效果;(3)在合同目的實現上,公司未否認勞動關系,員工主張權益未受阻;(4)在法律原則上,員工對勞動合同的法律性質和未簽的后果系明知,未積極主張簽訂勞動合同與誠信原則不符。因此,員工的主張未獲支持。The employee’s request to claim the difference of double wages may not be supported under special circumstances, even if a written labor contract has not been signed. In this case, although the employee and the employer did not sign a written labor contract, the court held that: (1) the employer handled the recruitment procedures, filed and registered the labor relationship, paid social insurance, and there was no obvious intention of not signing a written contract; (2) in terms of formal aspect, the relevant written documents and filed registration have included the substance of the written labor contract, and achieved the legal effect of determining the rights and obligations of the parties; (3) in the realization of the purpose of the contract, the employer had not denied the labor relationship, the employee had not been prevented from claiming his rights and interests; (4) in the principle of law, the employee was aware of the legal nature of the labor contract and the consequences of the failure to sign the written contract, and his lack of active advocacy for the signing of the labor contract was inconsistent with the principle of good faith. Therefore, the employee’s claim was not supported.2. 用人單位以勞動者欺詐為由解除勞動合同合法性的審查標準。在一個案例中,員工職位為藝術培訓學校的播音主持教師,其面試時提供虛假學歷證書和小學教師資格證書,法院認為該員工的行為致使學校作出錯誤意思表示,構成法律意義上的欺詐;另一案例中,員工職位為銷售經理,其在入職登記表的“有無法律訴訟案件糾紛或判決”一欄填寫“無”,但實際該員工與前用人單位存在勞動爭議,法院認為隱瞞其與前單位的涉訴情況與履行勞動合同無關聯,不構成法律意義上的欺詐。Criteria for reviewing the legality of an employer’s termination of an employment contract due to employee fraud. In one case, the employee was a broadcasting teacher in an art training school, and provided false diploma and Elementary Teacher Certificate during the interview. The court held that the employee’s behavior caused the school to make a wrong manifestation of intention, which constituted fraud in the legal sense. In another case, the employee was a sales manager, and filled out the column of “Whether there is a dispute in a lawsuit case or a judgment” in the registration form in the “no”, but in fact the employee and the former employer did have a labor dispute. The court held that the concealment of the existence of a labor dispute lawsuit with his former employer was not linked to the fulfillment of the labor contract, and did not constitute fraud in the legal sense.
六、典型案例:上海市三法院分別發布勞動爭議相關典型案例
Exploration of Typical Cases: Three Courts in Shanghai Released Labor Disputes Typical Cases1. 上海市高級人民法院發布“穩定就業”相關的典型案例
Shanghai Higher People’s Court Released Typical Cases Related to Stabilizing Employment2023年12月1日,上海市高級人民法院召開上海法院司法服務保障穩定就業、促進消費新聞發布會,共發布了5個“穩定就業”相關的典型案例,體現出法院通過勞動爭議多元解紛機制化解糾紛以及根據事實定分止爭的特點。On December 1, 2023, the Shanghai Higher People’s Court held a press conference on the judicial services to ensure stable employment and promote consumption in Shanghai, and released five typical cases related to “stabilizing employment”, reflecting the court’s characteristics of resolving labor disputes through the multiple disputes settlement mechanism, and settling labor disputes based on facts.2. 上海市徐匯區人民法院發布《涉民營企業勞動爭議案件審判白皮書》
Shanghai Xuhui District People’s Court Released White Paper on Labor Dispute Cases Involving Private Enterprises2023年12月8日,上海市徐匯區人民法院舉行新聞發布會,發布《2018年至2022年涉民營企業勞動爭議案件審判白皮書》,包含8起典型案例。我們認為下述案例值得關注:On December 8, 2023, the Shanghai Xuhui District People’s Court held a press conference and released the White Paper on Labor Dispute Cases Involving Private Enterprises from 2018 to 2022, which contained eight typical cases. Among them, we highlight below cases for reference:案例1中,公司在員工報到5日后以不再設立錄用通知書中載明的崗位為由拒絕簽訂勞動合同,法院認定公司違背了誠實信用原則,需按照員工在原公司月工資的1.5倍向員工賠償經濟損失。案例8中,員工離職后未與公司妥善解決尚未完成的工作事宜,不符合誠信履約的法律原則,有違社會主義核心價值觀,員工意識到行為不當后和公司達成調解協議。In the Case I, the employer refused to sign the labor contract on the grounds that job position set out in the offer letter would no longer be existed five days after the employee started work. The court found that the employer had violated the principle of good faith, and was required to compensate the employee for the economic loss in accordance with 1.5 times the employee’s monthly salary in the previous employer. In the Case IIX, the employee departed from the employer and did not properly handle the pending work matters with the employer, which was not in line with the legal principle of good faith, violated the core socialist values. The employee realized the misconduct and reached a mediation agreement the employer.3. 上海市奉賢區人民法院發布《勞動爭議審判執行案件白皮書》Shanghai Fengxian District People’s Court Released White Paper on Labor Dispute Trial and Enforcement Cases2023年12月15日,上海市奉賢區人民法院發布《勞動爭議審判執行案件白皮書》。其中案例5值得關注,該案例中,員工近五年中先后向不同的用人單位提起十幾次仲裁與訴訟,其請求多包含未簽勞動合同雙倍工資差額,并多次對勞動合同中的簽名提出筆跡鑒定后獲得非本人所簽的鑒定結論。該法院審理時考慮到員工的書寫樣本中筆跡特征未得到充分反映,因而調取了員工在另案庭審筆錄中書寫的簽名用以鑒定,并認定員工在勞動合同中的簽名為本人所簽。后員工又提起新的勞動合同糾紛且再次申請鑒定,奉賢法院根據法定代表人和員工關于勞動合同到期時間的聊天記錄,未安排進行筆跡鑒定,認定勞動合同的真實性,未支持員工要求雙倍工資的主張。On 15 December 2023, Shanghai Fengxian District People’s Court issued a White Paper on Labor Dispute Trial and Enforcement Cases. In Case V of the White Paper, the employee filed over a dozen arbitration and litigation cases in the past five years against different employers, and his requests usually included the difference of double wages for not sign a written labor contract. He had requested the handwriting verification of the signatures repeatedly in the labor contract for many times, and then obtained the identification conclusion that the signatures were not signed by the employee himself. The court taking into account the employee’s handwriting characteristics in the handwriting sample were not fully reflected, and thus accessed to the employee’s signature written in the transcripts of other trials for identification, and found that the employee’s signature in the labor contract was signed by himself. Thereafter the employee filed a new labor contract dispute and applied for handwriting verification again, Fengxian Court did not arrange the handwriting verification, but confirmed the authenticity of the labor contract, and did not support the employee’s claim for the difference of double wages based on the chat records between the legal representative and the employee about the expiration time of the labor contract.
七、典型案例:北京市東城區人民法院發布兩批勞動用工相關典型案例
Exploration of Typical Cases: Beijing Dongcheng District People’s Court Released Two Batches of Typical Cases Related to Labor and Employment
1. 北京市東城區人民法院(“東城法院”)發布能動司法審理勞動爭議典型案例
Beijing Dongcheng District People’s Court (“Dongcheng Court”) Released Typical Cases of Active Judicial Trial of Labor Disputes2023年11月11日,東城法院發布能動司法審理勞動爭議典型案例。典型案例裁審觀點如下:On 11 November 2023, Dongcheng Court issued typical cases of active judicial trial of labor disputes. The judicial views are as follows:a. 員工在職期間將公司的客戶信息共享給競爭者,法院認定在勞動合同履行期間勞動者負有保密義務,用人單位約定在職期間的保密違約金不違反法律規定,就雙方約定的30萬元違約金,法院綜合考慮被告的違約行為、收入水平、過錯程度及損失情況,酌減至4萬元。The employee shared the employer’s customer information with a competitor of the employer. The court held that the employee had a duty of confidentiality during the performance of the employment contract, and that the employer’s agreement on liquidated damages for confidentiality duty during his employment did not violate the laws and regulations. With regard to the liquidated damages of 300,000 RMB agreed by both parties, the court reduced the amount to 40,000 RMB at its discretion, taking into account the employee’s default behavior, level of income, degree of fault and damages.b. 員工兩次以生病為由申請病假后旅游,旅游中拍攝的跳躍照片也與病情相悖,該行為既有違誠信也有違職業操守,公司解除勞動合同合法。The employee applied for sick leave on the grounds of illness and then traveled twice, and the jumping photos taken during the travel did not correspond to his body condition, which was against both integrity and professional conduct, therefore the eployer terminated the employment contract legally.c. 員工因父親病危請假,請假當日回家照顧其父親,并于假期內提供了父親病歷照片,但未獲批,公司以員工構成曠工為由解除勞動合同。法院認為公司未體現出以人為本的發展理念,與社會主義核心價值觀中友善的要求不符,亦有悖中華民族的傳統孝文化,既不合情也不合理,屬于違法解除。The employee took a leave of absence due to his father’s critical illness, went home to take care of his father, and provided photos of his father’s medical records during the leave, but the employer did not approve and terminated the employment contract on the grounds that the employee was absent from work. The court held that the employer failed to follow the concept of people-oriented development, and was inconsistent with the requirement of friendliness in the socialist core values and contrary to the traditional filial piety culture of the Chinese, was neither reasonable nor sensible, and it shall be deemed as illegal termination of the employment contract.2. 東城法院發布《雇主責任保險案件審判白皮書》
Dongcheng Court Releases White Paper on Trial of Employers’ Liability Insurance Cases2023年12月29日,東城法院召開新聞發布會發布了《雇主責任保險案件審判白皮書(2020-2023年)》。該《白皮書》的典型案例1中,保險公司以傷者不符合保險條款中載明的“雇員”定義,傷者與用工單位是勞務關系而非勞動關系拒賠,法院審理認為雇主責任保險中的“雇傭關系”不應特指勞動關系,雇主與雇員的概念也不應特指勞動關系中的用人單位和勞動者,判決保險公司賠償。On December 29, 2023, Dongcheng Court held a press conference to release the White Paper on Trial of Employers’ Liability Insurance Cases (2020-2023). In the Case I of the White Paper, the insurance company refused to pay compensation on the grounds that the injured person did not meet the definition of “employee” set forth in the insurance policy, and that the injured person and the employer were in a service relationship rather than an employment relationship. The court held that the “relationship” in the employer’s liability insurance should not specifically refer to the employment relationship, and the concept of enterprise and worker should not specifically refer to the employer and employee in the employment relationship, and awarded compensation to the insurance company.目前的非勞動關系用工實踐中,企業通常通過雇主責任險防范和控制用工風險。法院的審理口徑明確雇主責任保險中的“雇傭關系”不應特指勞動關系,應做廣義解釋,和雇主責任險的定位一致。In the current practice of engagement in non-labor relationship, enterprises usually prevent and control the risk of employment through employer’s liability insurance. The court’s decision made it clear that the “relationship” in the employer’s liability insurance should not refer to the labor relationship in particular, but should be interpreted in a broader sense, which is consistent with the goals of the employer’s liability insurance.