>>>welcome 河南大学, You have logged in.
Logout History Contact us  
Font Size:  A A A Search “Fabao” Window English 中文 = 简体  繁体
  Favorite   DownLoad   Print
 
Guiding Case No. 18: ZTE (Hangzhou) Co., Ltd. v. Wang Peng (Employment contract dispute)
指导案例18号:中兴通讯(杭州)有限责任公司诉王鹏劳动合同纠纷案
【法宝引证码】

Guiding Case No. 18: ZTE (Hangzhou) Co., Ltd. v. Wang Peng(Employment contract dispute)

 

指导案例18号:中兴通讯(杭州)有限责任公司诉王鹏劳动合同纠纷案

(Issued on November 8, 2013, as adopted by the Judicial Committee of the Supreme People's Court after deliberation) (最高人民法院审判委员会讨论通过 2013年11月8日发布)

Guiding Case No. 18 指导案例18号
Keywords: 关键词
Civil; employment contract; unilateral rescission 民事 劳动合同 单方解除
Judgment's Key Points 裁判要点
An employee with the lowest rating after performance evaluation by the employer is not necessarily an “incompetent” employee. The lowest rating of an employee is not a statutory circumstance for the unilateral rescission of an employment contract. The employer should not unilaterally rescind an employment contract on this account. 劳动者在用人单位等级考核中居于末位等次,不等同于“不能胜任工作”,不符合单方解除劳动合同的法定条件,用人单位不能据此单方解除劳动合同。
Relevant Legal Provisions 相关法条
Articles 39 and 40 of the Employment Contract Law of the People's Republic of China 中华人民共和国劳动合同法》第三十九条、第四十条
Basic Facts 基本案情
In July 2005, defendant Wang Peng was employed by plaintiff ZTE (Hangzhou) Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “ZTE”). According to the employment contract, Wang Peng served as a salesman, with a basic monthly salary of 3,840 yuan. The Employee Performance Management Measures of ZTE provided that the semi-annual and annual employee performance evaluations were classified into four grades: S, A, C1, and C2, respectively standing for excellence, good, inconformity with company values, and performance expected to improve; the percentages of Grades S, A, and C (C1 and C2) were 20%, 70%, and 10% respectively; in principle, Grade C2 should be assigned to incompetent employees. Wang Peng originally worked as a salesman in the Distribution Division, and was transferred to the Eastern Region still as a salesman after January 2009 due to the removal of the Distribution Division and other reasons. In the performance evaluations for the second half of 2008, the first half of 2009, and the second half of 2010, the evaluation results of Wang Peng were all C2. ZTE considered that Wang Peng was incompetent before and even after transfer to another post, and rescinded the employment contract with him after paying a certain amount of economic indemnity to Wang Peng. 2005年7月,被告王鹏进入原告中兴通讯(杭州)有限责任公司(以下简称中兴通讯)工作,劳动合同约定王鹏从事销售工作,基本工资每月3840元。该公司的《员工绩效管理办法》规定:员工半年、年度绩效考核分别为S、A、C1、C2四个等级,分别代表优秀、良好、价值观不符、业绩待改进;S、A、C(C1、C2)等级的比例分别为20%、70%、10%;不胜任工作原则上考核为C2。王鹏原在该公司分销科从事销售工作,2009年1月后因分销科解散等原因,转岗至华东区从事销售工作。2008年下半年、2009年上半年及2010年下半年,王鹏的考核结果均为C2。中兴通讯认为,王鹏不能胜任工作,经转岗后,仍不能胜任工作,故在支付了部分经济补偿金的情况下解除了劳动合同。
On July 27, 2011, Wang Peng applied for labor arbitration. On October 8 of the same year, the arbitration commission rendered an award that ZTE should pay Wang Peng the remaining amount of compensation of 36,596.28 yuan for its illegal rescission of the employment contract. Claiming that it had not illegally rescinded the employment contract, on November 1 of the same year, ZTE brought an action in the court, requesting the court to order that the alleged remaining amount of compensation for its rescission of the employment contract should not be paid. 2011年7月27日,王鹏提起劳动仲裁。同年10月8日,仲裁委作出裁决:中兴通讯支付王鹏违法解除劳动合同的赔偿金余额36596.28元。中兴通讯认为其不存在违法解除劳动合同的行为,故于同年11月1日诉至法院,请求判令不予支付解除劳动合同赔偿金余额。
Judgment 裁判结果
On December 6, 2011, the People's Court of Binjiang District, Hangzhou City, Zhejiang Province issued a civil judgment (No. 885 [2011], First, Civil Division, Binjiang): Plaintiff ZTE should pay defendant Wang Peng the remaining amount of compensation of 36,596.28 yuan for its illegal rescission of the employment contract in a lump sum within 15 days from the effective date of this judgment. After the pronouncement of this judgment, neither of the parties appealed, and this judgment came into force. 浙江省杭州市滨江区人民法院于2011年12月6日作出(2011)杭滨民初字第885号民事判决:原告中兴通讯(杭州)有限责任公司于本判决生效之日起十五日内一次性支付被告王鹏违法解除劳动合同的赔偿金余额36596.28元。宣判后,双方均未上诉,判决已发生法律效力。
Judgment's Reasoning 裁判理由
In the effective judgment, the court held that: To protect the lawful rights and interests of workers and build and develop harmonious and stable labor relationships, the Labor Law of the People's Republic of China and the Employment Contract Law of the People's Republic of China specified the conditions for an employer to unilaterally rescind an employment contract. Plaintiff ZTE rescinded the employment contract on the ground that defendant Wang Peng was incompetent before and even after transfer to another post. ZTE should assume the burden of proof in this regard. The Employee Performance Management Measures provided that: “the percentage of Grade C (C1 and C2) is 10%.” Although Wang Peng had an evaluation result of C2, Grade C2 was not equal to “incompetent.” ZTE could not prove the incompetence of an employee only based on an evaluation result subject to a specified percentage, and the statutory conditions for its unilateral rescission of an employment contract were not satisfied. Although Wang Peng was transferred to another post from the Distribution Division in January 2009, he was a salesman both before and after the transfer, and the primary cause of his transfer was the removal of the Distribution Division. Therefore, it could not be proved that Wang Peng was transferred to another post because he was incompetent. Therefore, ZTE's allegation that Wang Peng was incompetent before and even after transfer to another post lacked any basis. For its illegal rescission of the employment contract, ZTE should compensate Wang Peng in twice the amount of the economic compensation standard.

 法院生效裁判认为:为了保护劳动者的合法权益,构建和发展和谐稳定的劳动关系,《中华人民共和国劳动法》《中华人民共和国劳动合同法》对用人单位单方解除劳动合同的条件进行了明确限定。原告中兴通讯以被告王鹏不胜任工作,经转岗后仍不胜任工作为由,解除劳动合同,对此应负举证责任。根据《员工绩效管理办法》的规定,“C(C1、C2)考核等级的比例为10%”,虽然王鹏曾经考核结果为C2,但是C2等级并不完全等同于“不能胜任工作”,中兴通讯仅凭该限定考核等级比例的考核结果,不能证明劳动者不能胜任工作,不符合据此单方解除劳动合同的法定条件。虽然2009年1月王鹏从分销科转岗,但是转岗前后均从事销售工作,并存在分销科解散导致王鹏转岗这一根本原因,故不能证明王鹏系因不能胜任工作而转岗。因此,中兴通讯主张王鹏不胜任工作,经转岗后仍然不胜任工作的依据不足,存在违法解除劳动合同的情形,应当依法向王鹏支付经济补偿标准二倍的赔偿金。
 

     
     
Scan QR Code and Read on Mobile
【法宝引证码】        北大法宝en.pkulaw.cn
Message: Please kindly comment on the present translation.
 
Confirmation Code:
Click image to reset code
 
  Translations are by lawinfochina.com, and we retain exclusive copyright over content found on our website except for content we publish as authorized by respective copyright owners or content that is publicly available from government sources.

Due to differences in language, legal systems, and culture, English translations of Chinese law are for reference purposes only. Please use the official Chinese-language versions as the final authority. Lawinfochina.com and its staff will not be directly or indirectly liable for use of materials found on this website.

We welcome your comments and suggestions, which assist us in continuing to improve the quality of our materials as we dynamically expand content.
 
Home | About us | Disclaimer | Chinese