During the production and operation of the enterprise, it is inevitable that employees will travel on business and stay. If they falsely report travel expenses and are fired after being discovered by the company, is the company illegal? Let’s see how the court made the judgment in this case.
According to a civil judgment disclosed on the official website of China Judgment Documents Network, on September 1, 2004, Xia Moumou signed an employment contract with Shanghai XX Service Co., Ltd., and Shanghai XX Service Co., Ltd. sent Xia Moumou to the company to work.
On November 20, 2008, Xia Moumou and the company signed an labor contract , and Xia Moumou served as the technical service work of the sales department.
On March 5, 2013, Xia Moumou and the company signed an unfixed labor contract for from March 1, 2013, and Xia Moumou served as senior technical service work.
On May 7, 2018, when the company investigated Xia’s business trip reimbursement, Xia signed a statement, which included: In August 2017, when I was responsible for the XX Dreamtian Wooden Gate Project, I stayed at the XX Tokyo Metropolitan Hotel in August 2017. I stayed for a total of 4 nights. passed the approval and received a reimbursement fee of 1,072 yuan (that is, falsely reporting more than 400 yuan) RMB. When I was at the XX Tokyo Metropolitan Hotel, I communicated with the hotel front desk waiter to issue accommodation invoices. will issue the invoice in the hotel to 268 yuan per night , but the actual situation of is that the real accommodation fee of the XX Tokyo Metropolitan Hotel is RMB 158 yuan per night.
On June 28, 2018, the company issued a notice of termination of the labor contract to Xia Moumou, which included: In view of Xia Moumou's behavior of providing false materials for false reimbursement during the reimbursement of travel expenses, according to relevant laws and regulations, the labor contract signed by the two parties on March 1, 2013, the "Employment and Business Conduct Code" and other rules and regulations, Company decided to terminate the disciplinary violations of Xia Moumou's labor contract and labor relations on June 29 of the same year.
On August 13, 2018, Xia Moumou applied for arbitration to the Shanghai Labor and Personnel Dispute Arbitration Committee, demanding that Xuan Wei pay 504,000 yuan in compensation for illegally termination of the labor contract and 4,248 yuan in overtime wages on October 1, 2017, March 28 and 29, 2018. On October 8, 2018, the association ruled that the company should pay Xia Moumou an overtime salary of 2584.40 yuan on October 1, 2017, and did not support Xia Moumou's other arbitration requests.
Xia Moumou dissatisfied with the arbitration ruling and sued the first instance court.
Xia Moumou's first-instance lawsuit request: order the company to pay compensation for illegal termination of labor contracts RMB (the same currency as below)568,344 yuan.
The first instance court held that regarding Xia Moumou's claim to compensate for illegal termination of labor contracts, the company terminated the labor contract with Xia Moumou on June 29, 2018 on the grounds that Xia Moumou provided false materials during the reimbursement of travel expenses and seriously violated the company's rules and regulations. Is it legal and valid?
First, the company's "Employee Manual" (2015 edition) stipulates that providing false materials and making false statements during expense reimbursement, business negotiations, etc. will be terminated by the labor contract without any economic compensation. The regulations indicate that the company has made it clear to employees, including Xia, that false invoices or false reimbursement are serious violations of discipline, and that the labor contract will be terminated;
Secondly, in August 2017, Xia Moumou conspired with the XX Tokyo Metropolitan Hotel waiter to issue an additional 400 yuan in accommodation fee invoice, and reimburse the business trip expenses with the extra accommodation fee invoice. Xia Moumou has existed For this reason, the company terminated the labor contract with Xia on the grounds that it provided false materials for false reimbursement and seriously violated the rules and regulations of the employer, which complies with relevant laws and company rules and regulations, indicating that the company's termination of the labor contract made by Xia on the basis that it was provided with false materials and made false reimbursement, which was in line with relevant laws and regulations, indicating that the company's handling of the termination of the labor contract made by Xia on the basis of this reason was legal and valid;
Again, Xia believed that the amount of false invoices was small and the circumstances were significantly slight.It is also believed that the amount of more than 400 yuan spent is 100 yuan a day for meals, and the total cost of meals for four days is not a false invoice or false reimbursement.
First, according to the Labor Law , abiding by labor discipline and fulfilling the obligation of loyalty are the basic professional ethics requirements of workers. As a sales technician of an enterprise who enjoys higher treatment, Xia Moumou's loyalty requirements for the enterprise are much higher than that of other employees. The determination of the severity of the violation of the false reimbursement behavior is not only about the amount, but also about the nature of violating the principle of integrity, infringing on the legal rights and interests of the enterprise, and having a bad impact.
Secondly, when Xia Moumou was reimbursing the travel expenses, he did not explain to the company that the accommodation fee invoice contained four-day meal supplementary expenses, and could not prove that more than 400 yuan was a meal supplementary expense.
Third, the company has corresponding reimbursement regulations on business trip meal reimbursement expenses. The meal reimbursement expenses should not be reimbursed by issuing more amounts in the accommodation fee invoice, indicating that the invoice is not the actual expenses of the accommodation, and is still a false invoice or false reimbursement. Therefore, Xia Moumou's opinion has no factual basis and the first instance court will not adopt it.
In addition, Xia Moumou believes that the formulation of the company's "Employee Manual" does not comply with democratic procedures and is not binding on it. Xia has confirmed on the confirmation of the Employee Manual and is willing to abide by the Employee Manual. Moreover, the company solicits opinions from company employees by sending emails. Therefore, Xia Moumou's opinion also lacks factual and legal basis, and the first instance court refused to adopt it. In addition, Xia Moumou believes that the decision made by the company to terminate the labor contract has not solicited opinions from the trade union and does not comply with the regulations. Because the company did not establish a trade union organization, there were no conditions for soliciting opinions from the company's trade union. Moreover, the company had notified the local town trade union of the termination of the contract before the first trial. Therefore, Xia Moumou's opinion was not adopted by the first instance court.
The first instance court ruled: rejected Xia's lawsuit request to pay the company to pay compensation for illegally terminate the labor contract.
Xia Moumou was dissatisfied and filed an appeal.
The Second Intermediate People's Court of Shanghai held that in this case, the fact that the appellant issued an extra amount in the accommodation fee invoice proved that the amount displayed on the invoice was not the actual expenses for the appellant's accommodation. However, the appellant still reimbursed the invoice in this case. The respondent terminated the labor contract between the two parties on the grounds that the false reimbursement of the appellant constituted a serious violation of discipline. The appellant insisted that the respondent's termination of the act was illegal on the grounds that there was no fact of violation of discipline and that the employee manual was formulated and revised without legal procedures.
However, the appellant stated in the statement, "I know the requirements of the company's reimbursement policy, and I know that I did not issue invoices according to the real accommodation amount, which violated the company's discipline and policy. I am willing to return the false accommodation amount to the company." Based on the evidence submitted by both parties and the statements of the parties, the first instance court has given a detailed explanation of whether the appellant's claim that the unilateral termination of the appellant was an illegal termination. The reasons are sufficient, which is enough to determine that the appellant's above-mentioned behavior not only violates the company's rules and regulations, infringes on the legitimate rights and interests of the respondent, but also violates the basic principles of honesty and trustworthiness and the workers' obligation of loyalty to the employer. Based on this, the first instance court determined that the unilateral termination of the appellant's unilateral termination of the appellant was legal, and did not support the compensation for the illegal termination of the appellant's claim, which is based on the law.
In summary, the judgment is as follows: the appeal is rejected and the original judgment is upheld.
Xia Moumou was still dissatisfied and appealed to the Shanghai Higher People's Court.
Xia Moumou applied for retrial and stated that Xia Moumou only reimbursed the meal subsidy he should enjoy by opening more accommodation fees. Although Xia Moumou's behavior was inappropriate in terms of method, he did not subjectively intentionally defraud the company's money through false reimbursement, and objectively did not reimburse the expenses. Xia Moumou's behavior did not essentially have false reimbursement. The company's 2015 edition of the "Employee Manual" was formulated illegally, so the company's termination of the labor contract has no factual basis or legal basis. Even if the formulation procedures and content of the "Employee Manual" are legal, termination of labor contracts under Article 31 of the "Employee Manual" will violate the principle of fairness and reason, and should be deemed to be illegally terminated.
The Shanghai Higher People's Court held that Xia Moumou recognized the fact that the amount issued in the accommodation fee invoice was issued more, proving that the amount displayed on the invoice was not the actual expenses of Xia Moumou's accommodation. Based on the evidence provided by both parties and the statements of the parties, the original court has elaborated on the legality of the company's termination of Xia Moumou's labor contract, with sufficient reasons. Based on this, it is determined that Xia Moumou's above-mentioned behavior violates the company's rules and regulations, which is contrary to the basic principles of honesty and trustworthiness and the workers' obligation of loyalty to the employer. The company's termination of Xia Moumou's labor contract has factual and legal basis, and this court agrees with this. In addition, Xia Moumou confirmed reading and agreeing to all aspects of the "Employee Manual" on the confirmation letter of the "Employee Manual" and was willing to abide by the provisions of the "Employee Manual". Now Xia Moumou raised objections to the formulation procedures of the "Employee Manual", but failed to provide evidence to prove it, and this court did not accept it. In summary, the original court did not support Xia Moumou's request to pay compensation for illegal termination of the labor contract, and there was no improperness.
In accordance with the regulations, the ruling is as follows: Xia Moumou’s application for retrial is rejected.
Source: Daily Economic News
Editor: Zhang Heng Li Yingxuan
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-