PRC: Local employment case updates / 中国：各地劳动案例更新

Major cities in China have recently updated their local classic and reference cases related to employment disputes, meanwhile significant cases have continually been added to the People's Court Case Database. This update provides a summary of recent local judicial cases.

近期中国各主要城市更新了当地的典型案例与参考案例，人民法院司法案例库也不断有新的重要劳动案例被收录。本期更新总结了近期重要的地方司法案例。

Beijing: Overtime
北京：加班

On 1 April 2019, Li joined a technology company in Beijing as a product operations manager. Li's employment contract stipulated a flexible working hours system, although the company had not obtained administrative approval for implementing such a system. Li claimed that he worked overtime after regular working hours, on rest days, and on statutory holidays without receiving overtime pay. He submitted evidence such as WeChat chat records and the company's holiday duty roster sheet, showing communication with clients or colleagues through WeChat or DingTalk after working hours, on weekends, and during holidays. The company argued that these did not constitute overtime work.

李某于2019年4月1日入职北京某科技公司担任产品运营。双方劳动合同中约定执行不定时工作制，北京某科技公司未进行不定时工作制审批。李某认为其下班后、休息日和法定节假日存在延时加班，公司未向其支付加班费。李某提交了微信聊天记录、《假期社群官方账号值班表》等证据，载有其下班后、周末与法定节假日在微信或者钉钉等软件中与客户或者同事的沟通交流。公司认为这不属于加班范畴。

The court supported Li's claim for overtime pay. It ruled that although the employment contract stipulated a flexible working hours system, the company had not obtained the necessary administrative approval. On the facts of the case, Li's job as a product operations manager typically required communication via WeChat and other media. Based on the evidence provided, the court concluded that the company had indeed assigned work to Li during his off-hours and rest days.

法院支持了李某对于加班费的请求。法院认为，虽然双方在合同中约定实行“不定时工作制”，但公司未进行“不定时工作制”审批。李某的工作岗位为“产品运营”，往往以微信等作为工作媒介进行沟通。从提交李某提交的证据来看，可以认为公司在部分工作日下班时间及休息日安排李某艳工作。

The court noted that as work models become more flexible, the definition of the workplace should also adapt. When determining whether an employee is entitled to receive overtime pay, it is essential to comprehensively consider whether the employee has actually performed work during their off-hours and rest days.

法院强调，随着工作模式越来越灵活，应调整“工作场所”的概念。在认定员工是否应当获得加班费时，应综合考虑员工是否在下班时间或休息日提供了实质工作内容。

Beijing: Workplace Bullying
北京：职场霸凌

In August 2018, Yang, the employee, joined a company as a Business Manager. In February 2023, the company's legal representative, Liu, asked Yang to adjust their work duties to include auditing tasks, which Yang refused. Consequently, Liu instructed the company's HR Manager to assign Yang a separate office and required Yang to copy a Buddhist scripture 100 times. An announcement was made within the company regarding this arrangement. The next day, Yang's work laptop, files, and other belongings were removed, leaving only a copy of the Buddhist scripture on the desk. In response, Yang issued a "Forced Termination of Employment Contract Notice" citing the employer's failure to provide working conditions as agreed. Yang subsequently filed for arbitration, requesting the company to pay statutory severance.

2018年8月，员工杨某入职某公司，担任商务经理。2023年2月，公司法定代表人刘某要求杨某调整工作内容，承担审计工作，遭到杨某拒绝。于是，刘某要求人事经理给杨某单独安排一个办公室抄写《心经》100遍。公司内发布了公告通报对杨某的相关安排。次日，杨某的办公电脑、文件等被收走，办公桌上只留下一本《心经》。为此，杨某以公司未按约定提供劳动条件为由，向公司发出《被迫解除劳动合同通知书》。之后杨某提出仲裁申请，要求公司支付法定经济补偿金。

According to the Labour Contract Law, if an employer does not provide the labour protection or working conditions outlined in the employment contract, the employee is entitled to terminate the contract and request severance payment. In this case, the arbitration committee defined “working conditions” as the essential material and basic provisions needed by the employee to properly perform the tasks specified in the employment contract. This included necessary work tools, equipment, workplace, technical conditions, and other relevant aspects. On the facts, the company’s arrangement for Yang significantly differed from the job responsibilities detailed in their employment contract. Additionally, the arbitration committee held that the company's removal of Yang’s work laptop and other office supplies amounted to a failure to provide the agreed-upon working conditions. Consequently, Yang's decision to terminate the employment contract and seek severance was legally justified.

根据《劳动合同法》，若雇主未按照劳动合同约定提供劳动保护或者劳动条件，员工可以解除劳动合同并获得经济补偿。本案中，仲裁委认为“劳动条件”主要指用人单位为劳动者顺利完成劳动合同约定的工作任务所需提供的必要的物质和基础条件，如必要的劳动工具、设备、工作场地（工作地点）以及技术条件和其他工作条件等。本案中，公司对杨某的安排与双方劳动合同中约定的岗位职责严重不符。此外，仲裁委认为公司撤走杨某办公电脑及用品的行为亦构成未按照劳动合同约定提供劳动条件。杨某据此提出解除劳动合同并要求支付经济补偿，符合法律规定。

The arbitration committee also noted in the case commentary that the topic of "workplace bullying" has remained highly relevant in recent years. Employers should exercise their rights within the framework of the law, ensuring that management actions are based on genuine business needs. When it comes to formulating rules, adjusting positions, changing work locations, or altering job responsibilities or duties, employers must act in accordance with the law, respect contractual agreements, engage in sincere negotiations, and fully consider the wishes of their employees. Employers must not use their dominant position to deprive employees of their right to work normally, nor should they misuse their power to bully or retaliate against employees, potentially causing physical or mental harm.

仲裁委在案件评注中指出，“职场霸凌”近年来备受关注。用人单位应在法律框架内管理员工，管理行为需基于生产经营的切实需要。在制定规章、调整岗位、工作地点和工作内容时，应依法依规、尊重约定、诚恳协商，充分考虑员工意愿，不得利用强势地位剥夺员工正常工作的权利，更不能滥用职权进行职场霸凌或打击报复，对员工造成身心伤害。

Beijing: Conflict of Interest
北京：利益冲

In June 2017, Yu became the director and general manager of an aviation information consulting company ("Employer"). The Employer's "Employee Handbook" and "Code of Business Conduct and Ethics" both require employees to avoid conflicts of interest. In April 2016, Jia, a third-party individual, established a company in Shanghai (the "Shanghai Company"). In July 2018, Yu set up a company with the same name as the Shanghai Company in Beijing (the "Beijing Company"), holding 50% of the shares and serving as the legal representative and executive director. Starting in September 2018, with Yu's facilitation, the Shanghai Company began providing human resources services for the Employer. Investigations also revealed that Yu had recommended Jia to a third party in an email, referring to Jia as his "partner in Shanghai." In April 2021, the Employer terminated Yu's employment, citing his serious violation of company rules by using company information for personal gain. Yu believed this to be an unlawful termination and filed for arbitration, seeking compensation.

2017年6月起，俞某担任某航空信息咨询公司（“雇主”）董事兼总经理。雇主《员工手册》与《商业行为与道德守则》均要求员工避免利益冲突。2016年4月，贾某成立上海某某公司（“上海公司”）。2018年7月，俞某在北京设立与上海公司同名的北京某某公司（“北京公司”），持股50%并担任法定代表人及执行董事。2018年9月开始，经俞某报公司上级批准，上海公司为雇主提供人力资源服务。经查实，俞某曾在邮件中向第三方推荐贾某，并称其为“上海的合伙人”。2021年4月，雇主以俞某利用公司信息谋私，严重违反公司规章制度为由，解除其劳动关系。俞某认为此为违法解除，提出仲裁申请，要求赔偿。

The arbitration committee and the court both rejected Yu's claim, concluding that as a senior manager, Yu was required to strictly adhere to the Employer's policies. On the facts, Yu failed to disclose his role in the Beijing Company and referred to the legal representative of the Shanghai Company as his "partner in Shanghai" in an email to a third party. While there as insufficient evidence to prove a legal connection between the two companies, Yu's actions in establishing a cooperative relationship between the Employer and the Shanghai Company suggested a high likelihood of Yu violating company rules for personal gain. Consequently, Yu's breach of company policies and professional ethics justified the Employer's decision to terminate his employment contract.

本案仲裁委及法院均驳回了俞某的请求，认为俞某作为高级管理人员，应更为严格地遵守雇主的规章制度。俞某未向雇主披露其在北京公司的职务，并在邮件中向第三方称上海公司的法定代表人为其“上海的合伙人”。虽然证据不足以证明两家公司有法律关联，但结合俞某代表雇主与上海公司建立合作关系的情形，俞某的行为存在违规谋取私利之高度盖然性。因此，俞某违反公司规章和职业道德，雇主解除劳动合同合法。