Labor Dispute Dismissed: Hairstylist Fails to Prove Employment Relationship With Beauty Company

A labor dispute between a hairstylist and a beauty company has been dismissed by a court in eastern China after the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence establishing an employment relationship with the defendant company.

Mr. Li worked as a hairstylist at a salon operating under the name of a beauty chain store in a city in eastern China. He claimed to have started working there in July 2009. In June 2011, the defendant beauty company notified him of the termination of their employment relationship. Mr. Li sued the company seeking payment of unpaid wages for May 2011 amounting to 3,865 yuan, double salary of 25,726.80 yuan for the company’s failure to sign a written employment contract, double economic compensation of 9,355.20 yuan for unlawful termination, and various insurance payments totaling 45,741.70 yuan.

The dispute arose from a complex business arrangement. Mr. Li worked at a salon that was allegedly operated through a cooperation agreement between the defendant company’s legal representative Mr. Xu and a salon owner named Ms. Ding. The cooperation agreement was reportedly signed in 2009 for a five-year term. However, in June 2011, Mr. Xu withdrew from the business arrangement.

A key piece of evidence was a commitment letter dated June 20, 2011, signed by Mr. Xu, which stated that the May 2011 wages would be paid by the beauty company, while wages from June 2011 onward would be the responsibility of the local salon. The letter also mentioned that wages and subsidies for March and April 2011 would be jointly distributed. Several employees including Mr. Li signed this document.

The defendant company denied any employment relationship with Mr. Li. It argued that it had never operated the salon where Mr. Li worked. According to the defendant, Mr. Li’s actual employer was the local salon owned by Ms. Ding, which had its own separate business registration. The defendant claimed that the commitment letter was merely a gesture made during business cooperation negotiations and that Ms. Ding had already paid the employees’ wages.

The court carefully examined the evidence presented by both sides. The cooperation agreement submitted by Mr. Li was only a copy, and more critically, it lacked signatures or seals from either party at the end of the document. Without signatures, the court could not confirm that the agreement had been validly established, let alone actually performed.

The commitment letter, while authentic, only demonstrated that someone had agreed to pay certain wages for specific months. Even when combined with the unsigned cooperation agreement, this evidence was insufficient to prove when the business cooperation began or whether an employment relationship existed between Mr. Li and the defendant company.

The court noted that Mr. Li acknowledged his workplace was located at the address registered under Ms. Ding’s salon business license. Since the burden of proof rested on the plaintiff to establish the employment relationship, and Mr. Li’s evidence fell short, the court could not support his claims.

Regarding the wage payment commitment in the letter, the court clarified that Mr. Li’s legal claims were based entirely on an employment relationship with the defendant. Since that foundational relationship was not proven, the court could not grant relief on employment law grounds. However, the court noted that the relevant individuals might pursue their wage claims through ordinary civil litigation rather than labor dispute proceedings.

The court dismissed all of Mr. Li’s claims and assessed the reduced case acceptance fee of 10 yuan against him.

This case underscores the importance of maintaining proper documentation of employment relationships, particularly in business cooperation arrangements where multiple entities may be involved. Workers should ensure they have clear written employment contracts identifying their employer.

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified attorney for legal matters.