fund company has also become a "salary seeker".
A recent judgment document revealed the salary-paying process of Huang, the former general manager of a fund company in Beijing. The original fund company was required to pay more than 2 million yuan in salary differences and reimbursements. After the first and second trials, this "wage request" was partially successful.
The general manager of a fund company has also become a "salary seeker".
A recent judgment document revealed the salary-paying process of Huang, the former general manager of a fund company in Beijing. The original fund company was required to pay more than 2 million yuan in salary differences and reimbursements. After the first and second trials, this "wage request" was partially successful.
The general manager also asked for salary
On the Beijing Court Trial Information Network, a second instance civil judgment regarding a labor compensation dispute between the general manager of a fund company and the fund company was disclosed.
The judgment shows that Huang is currently the manager of Zhongcheng Baojies Currency Brokerage Co., Ltd. and lives in Putuo District, Shanghai. From public information, it was found that Huang joined a fund company in Beijing on January 1, 2016, and the two parties signed an unlimited-term labor contract starting from January 1, 2016.
The labor contract stipulates: The fund company hired Huang as the general manager of the company and the general manager of an asset management company. His usual working place is Beijing; the labor remuneration is a basic salary of 60,000 yuan/month and a position salary of 60,000 yuan/month. The above salary All are pre-tax standards; the three months from the date of signing between the two parties to the date of rescission/termination of the labor contract is the non-competition period for Huang.
On December 27, 2018, Huang mailed a notice of termination of the labor contract on the grounds that the fund company failed to pay labor remuneration in a timely and full amount. The fund company confirmed that it had received the notice on the same day, and both parties agreed to terminate the labor relationship on December 27, 2018.
During Huang's tenure as general manager and after his resignation, he had objections to some salary, reimbursement and other expenses, and sued his old employer through arbitration, appeals, etc. to "ask for salary."
This document was filed because Huang was dissatisfied with the civil judgment (2020) Beijing 0102 Minchu No. 24618 of the Xicheng District People's Court of Beijing, so he appealed to Beijing No. 2 Intermediate People's Court. After the court filed the case on December 13, 2021, it formed a collegial panel to hear the case in accordance with the law. The case has now been concluded.
This time, Huang’s request for appeal is to revoke items 1, 3, and 4 of the first-instance judgment, and remand for retrial or change the judgment to support my claims for untaken annual leave wages, termination of labor relations economic compensation and wage difference. The above-mentioned fund company argued that it agreed with the first-instance judgment but disagreed with Huang's appeal request.
The second-instance judgment has changed.
Part of the salary was recovered.
Judging from the ruling, both sides launched debates on some controversial issues. Compared with the first-instance judgment, the second-instance judgment had some changes, and Huang recovered part of his salary.
Let’s take a look first: The judgment of the court of first instance:
1. Within 10 days from the date of entry into force of the judgment, the above-mentioned Fund Management Co., Ltd. paid Huang’s untaken annual leave salary of 53,401.73 yuan from January 1, 2018 to December 27, 2018;
2. Within 10 days from the date when the judgment takes effect, the fund company shall pay Huang a reimbursement of 26,749.93 yuan for 2018;
3. The fund company does not need to pay the 1,714,719.08 yuan difference in Huang’s salary from January 1, 2016 to December 27, 2018;
4. The fund company does not need to pay Huang a financial compensation of 76,203 yuan for terminating the labor contract;
5. Reject Huang’s other claims.
During the second review, Huang submitted some new evidence: three emails, review opinions of the fund company’s 2017 annual compliance report, and some proof of his work performance during his tenure. The fund company does not recognize the authenticity, relevance and purpose of the evidence.
Finally, Huang’s appeal request was partially established.The judgment of the second instance is as follows:
1. Uphold the first and second items of the civil judgment of Beijing Xicheng District People’s Court (2020) Jing 0102 Minchu No. 24618;
2. Revoke the Beijing Xicheng District People’s Court (2020) Jing 0102 Minchu No. 24618 Items 3, 4, and 5 of the civil judgment:
3. The fund company shall pay the difference in Huang’s salary of 360,000 yuan (before tax) from January 1, 2016 to December 27, 2018 within 10 days from the date of entry into force of this judgment;
4. The fund company shall pay Huang a financial compensation of RMB 76,203 for terminating the labor contract within 10 days from the date of entry into force of this judgment;
5. Reject Huang’s other claims.
If it fails to perform its monetary payment obligations within the period specified in this judgment, it shall pay double the interest on the debt during the period of delayed performance in accordance with the provisions of Article 260 of the "Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China".
The second-instance case acceptance fee is 10 yuan, of which Huang will bear 5 yuan (already paid) and the fund management company will bear 5 yuan (to be paid within 7 days from the date of entry into force of this judgment).
The five major expenses disputed by both parties
Judging from the judgment, the disputes between Huang and the above-mentioned fund company mainly focus on five aspects:
First: Huang’s appointment as the general manager of the fund company and the salary difference thereafter, the amount exceeded 1.7 million yuan, to Therefore, there is a big dispute between the two parties.
Previously, Huang applied to the Beijing Xicheng District Labor and Personnel Dispute Arbitration Commission for arbitration before filing a lawsuit in this case. On July 22, 2020, the committee issued Jingxi Laoren Zhongzi [2019] No. 5367 ruling. One of the rulings was that the fund company paid the difference in Huang’s salary from January 1, 2016 to December 27, 2018. 1,714,719.08 yuan.
In the first instance, the fund company requested that no payment be required.
This judgment shows more clearly:
Huang required the fund company to pay the salary difference from January 1, 2016 to December 27, 2018, involving three periods.
(1) Regarding the salary difference from January 2016 to December 2017. Huang claimed that his monthly salary standard was 150,000 yuan, but according to the labor contract signed by Huang and the fund company, the monthly salary was 60,000 yuan as basic salary and 60,000 yuan as position salary. His company’s salary from January 2016 to December 2017 All were issued to Huang in accordance with this standard. The
fund company claimed that the difference claimed by Huang was performance pay, and the company had the right to decide not to pay performance pay based on the company's operating conditions and Huang's performance. According to the evidence submitted by the company, Huang did have poor performance of his duties as a senior executive of the company. Therefore, it was not inappropriate for the court of first instance to not support Huang’s claim of salary difference during this period.
(2) Regarding the salary difference from January to August 2018. The fund company paid wages according to the standard of 75,000 yuan during this period, but there is no evidence that the two parties reached an agreement on reducing the salary to 75,000 yuan. The company also did not submit sufficient evidence to prove the basis and process for adjusting the salary. Based on Huang's performance of duties during his work, the fund company should make up the salary difference during this period in accordance with the pre-tax standard of 120,000 yuan as agreed in the labor contract between the two parties. The court of first instance made an error in its finding that the agreement on wage standards between the two parties during this period had been changed. This court corrects it.
(3) Regarding the salary difference from September 1, 2018 to December 27, 2018. Huang appealed, claiming that the fund company unilaterally changed his salary after September 2018. He had raised objections and the fund company should pay the salary difference during this period.
However, based on the facts ascertained, the court of first instance found that Huang was on standby during that period and did not support his claim for the wage difference from September 1, 2018 to December 27, 2018. In summary, after accounting, the fund company should pay Huang the salary difference of 360,000 yuan (before tax) from January 1 to December 27, 2016.
Second, regarding wages during annual leave.
Huang proposed that the fund company should pay 165,000 yuan in untaken annual leave wages from January 1, 2018 to December 31, 2018.
The judgment shows that regarding untaken annual leave wages. Based on the facts ascertained, both parties agreed that Huang had taken 4 days of annual leave in 2018. Because Huang has been on standby since September 2018, there is no factual basis for payment of untaken annual leave wages. Therefore, this court calculated that Huang should be entitled to 5 days of untaken annual leave based on his working hours in 2018.
After calculation, the court of first instance ordered the fund company to pay the salary for untaken annual leave during this period not less than the amount Huang deserved, and this court upheld it. Huang's claim that the amount of untaken annual leave wages is too high lacks factual and legal basis, and this court will not support it.
Third, regarding reimbursement matters.
Huang proposed that the fund company should pay 26,749.93 yuan in reimbursement for 2018.
The ruling shows that the court of first instance ruled that the fund company should pay Huang’s 2018 reimbursement of RMB 26,749.93. Neither party raised any objection to this, and this court confirmed it in accordance with the law.
Fourth, non-competition compensation items.
Huang sued the court of first instance and requested that the fund company pay 135,000 yuan in non-competition compensation from January 1, 2019 to March 30, 2019.
Regarding non-compete compensation. Because Huang failed to file a lawsuit regarding the claim within the statutory time limit after the arbitration award was made, it was not inappropriate for the court of first instance not to handle the matter.
Fifth, financial compensation for the termination of the labor contract.
Previously, Huang requested to terminate the labor contract on the grounds that the fund company failed to pay labor remuneration in full and on time. As mentioned above, in view of the above situation, the fund company should pay Huang a financial compensation of 76,203 yuan for the termination of the labor contract. The court of first instance found that this handling was inconsistent with the facts, and this court changed the judgment in accordance with the law.
