>>>welcome visitor, haven't logged in. Login
Subscribe Now Contact us  
Font Size:  A A A Search “Fabao” Window English 中文 = 简体  繁体
  Favorite   DownLoad   Print
 
Wang Yunfei v. Shanghai Branch of Schneider Electric (China) Investment Co., Ltd. (A case about labor disputes)
王云飞诉施耐德电气(中国)投资有限公司上海分公司劳动争议纠纷案
【法宝引证码】
  • Type of Dispute: Civil-->Labor & Employment
  • Legal document: Judgment
  • Judgment date: 12-14-2007
  • Procedural status: Trial at First Instance

Wang Yunfei v. Shanghai Branch of Schneider Electric (China) Investment Co., Ltd. (A case about labor disputes)
(A case about labor disputes)
王云飞诉施耐德电气(中国)投资有限公司上海分公司劳动争议纠纷案

Wang Yunfei v. Shanghai Branch of Schneider Electric (China) Investment Co., Ltd.
(A case about labor disputes)@#
@#
@#
BASIC FACTS@#
Plaintiff: Wang Yunfei, male, a staff member of Nanjing Phoenix Electric Co., Ltd., residing at Xincun Village, Wangjianglou, Nantong, Jiangsu Province.@#
Defendant: Schneider Electric (China) Investment Co., Ltd., domiciled at: Suide Road, Putuo District, Shanghai.@#
Legal Representative: Du Huajun, chairman of the board of directors of this company.@#
The plaintiff, Wang Yunfei, filed a lawsuit with the People's Court of Gulou District of Nanjing of Jiangsu Province against the defendant, Shanghai Branch of Schneider Electric (China) Investment Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Schneider Shanghai Branch”), for labor disputes.@#
The plaintiff, Wang Yunfei, alleged that: in August 2005, he signed an employment contract with the defendant to work at the Nanjing Office of the defendant. In the same month, they signed a Confidentiality and Non-Competition Agreement, but its provisions on non-competition economic compensation, business restrictions and territorial restrictions were obviously unreasonable. So, the non-competition clause of this agreement should have no binding force upon the plaintiff. After resigning from the defendant, the plaintiff took a job at Nanjing Phoenix Electric Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Phoenix Company”) which did not compete in business with the defendant, but the defendant thought otherwise and claimed that the plaintiff's employment with Phoenix Company after resignation was a breach of his non-competition duty. On July 17, 2007, the defendant applied for arbitration to the Labor Dispute Arbitration Committee of Putuo District of Shanghai, requiring the plaintiff to pay a default penalty of 66, 600 yuan for violation of his non-competition obligation and to continue performing his non-competition obligation as agreed on by both parties. On September 20, 2007, the Labor Dispute Arbitration Committee of Putuo District of Shanghai rendered an award in favor of the default penalty of 66,600 yuan for the plaintiff's violation of his non-competition obligation, but dismissed other claims of Schneider Shanghai Branch. Opposing to the arbitral award, the plaintiff requested the court to affirm that the non-competition clause of the Confidentiality and Non-Competition Agreement in this case had no binding force upon the plaintiff and render a judgment to deny the plaintiff's default liability.@#
......

 

王云飞诉施耐德电气(中国)投资有限公司上海分公司劳动争议纠纷案@#
[裁判摘要]@#
竞业禁止是指负有特定义务的劳动者从原用人单位离职后,在一定期间内不得自营或为他人经营与原用人单位有直接竞争关系的业务。根据有关法律、行政法规的规定,用人单位与负有保守商业秘密义务的劳动者,可以在劳动合同或者保密协议中约定竞业禁止条款,同时应约定在解除或者终止劳动合同后,给予劳动者一定的竞业禁止经济补偿;未约定给予劳动者竞业禁止经济补偿,或者约定的竞业禁止经济补偿数额过低、不符合相关规定的,该竞业禁止条款对劳动者不具有约束力。@#
@#
原告:王云飞,男,南京菲尼克斯电气有限公司职员,住江苏省南通市望江楼新村。@#
被告:施耐德电气(中国)投资有限公司上海分公司,住所地:上海市普陀区绥德路。@#
法定代表人:杜华君,该公司董事长。@#
原告王云飞因与被告施耐德电气(中国)投资有限公司上海分公司(以下简称施耐德上海分公司)发生劳动争议纠纷,向江苏省南京市鼓楼区人民法院提起诉讼。@#
原告王云飞诉称:2005年8月,原告与被告施耐德上海分公司签订劳动合同,原告就职于被告的南京办事处。同月,双方又签订了《保密和竞业禁止协议》,但是该协议关于竞业禁止经济补偿、竞业禁止业务限制范围、竞业禁止区域限制范围等方面的规定明显不合理,故该协议中的竞业禁止条款对原告不具有约束力。原告离职后到南京菲尼克斯电气有限公司(以下简称菲尼克斯公司)工作,该公司与被告原本不存在业务竞争关系,但被告认为其与菲尼克斯公司存在竞争关系,原告离职后到菲尼克斯公司工作的行为违反了竞业禁止义务。2007年7月17日,被告向上海市普陀区劳动争议仲裁委员申请劳动仲裁,要求原告承担竞业禁止违约金66 600元,并继续履行双方约定的竞业禁止义务。 2007年9月20日,上海市普陀区仲裁委员会裁决原告承担竞业禁止违约金66 600元,但施耐德上海分公司的其他请求不予支持。原告不服该仲裁裁决,请求法院依法确认涉案《保密和竞业禁止协议》中的竞业禁止条款对原告不具有约束力,判令原告不承担违约责任。@#
被告施耐德上海分公司辩称:原告王云飞自愿与被告签订《保密和竞业禁止协议》,双方约定原告离职后1年内不得到与被告具有业务竞争关系的公司工作。但是在被告向原告支付了竞业禁止补偿金后,原告却到与被告具有业务竞争关系的菲尼克斯公司就职,其行为违反了双方关于竞业禁止的约定,应当按照已领取的竞业禁止补偿金的三倍向被告给付违约金。请求法院依法判决。@#
南京市鼓楼区人民法院一审查明:@#
原告王云飞于2005年8月29日到被告施耐德上海分公司工作,双方签订了劳动合同,原告的工作地点在江苏省南京市。同日,双方签订了《保密和竞业禁止协议》,该协议约定:竞争业务是i公司或其关联公司从事或者计划从事的业务与ii公司或者关联公司所经营的业务相同、相近或相竞争的其他业务;竞争对手是除公司或其关联公司外从事竞争业务的任何个人、公司、合伙、合资企业、独资企业或其他实体,包括Phoenix Rockwell Automation,Rittal等公司;区域是中华人民共和国境内。披露禁止是指雇员应对公司保密信息严格保密,在其与公司的聘用关系解除时不得以任何方式删改、锁定、复制保密信息,并应立即向公司返还所有保密信息及其载体和复印件;雇员同意在公司解除期间及其解除与公司的雇佣关系五年内,不以任何方式向公司或其关联公司的任何与使用保密信息工作无关的雇员、向任何竞争对手或者为公司利益之外的任何目的向任何其他个人和实体披露公司任何保密信息的全部或部分,除非该披露是法律所要求的。竞业禁止是指雇员承诺在解除与公司的雇佣关系一年内,不得在区域内部直接或者间接地投资或从事与公司业务相竞争的业务,或成立从事竞争业务的组织,或者向竞争对手提供任何服务或向其披露任何保密信息,不得正式或临时受雇于竞争对手或作为竞争对手的代理或代表从事活动。公司同雇员签订的劳动合同终止或者解除后,作为对雇员遵守披露禁止和竞业禁止承诺的经济补偿,公司将向雇员支付相当于其离职前一个月基本工资的竞业禁止补偿费;如雇员违背本合同义务,公司有权要求雇员停止侵害,解除与竞争对手的劳动、雇佣关系,并向公司赔偿相当于竞业禁止补偿费三倍的违约金。@#
......


Dear visitor, as a premium member of this database, you will get complete access to all content.Please go premium and get more.

1. To become a premium member, please call 400-810-8266 Ext. 171.

2. Binding to the account with access to this database.

3. Apply for a trial account.

4. To get instant access to a document, you can Pay Amount 【¥500.00】 for your single purchase.
 
您好:您现在要进入的是北大法宝英文库会员专区。
如您是我们英文用户可直接 登录,进入会员专区查询您所需要的信息;如您还不是我们 的英文用户;您可通过网上支付进行单篇购买,支付成功后即可立即查看本篇内容。
Tel: +86 (10) 82689699, +86 (10) 82668266 ext. 153
Mobile: +86 13311570713
Fax: +86 (10) 82668268
E-mail:info@chinalawinfo.com
     
     
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