Court Orders Company to Return Construction Engineer’s Professional License and Assist with Registration Transfer
Court Orders Company to Return Construction Engineer’s Professional License and Assist with Registration Transfer
CASE OVERVIEW
A Chinese civil court has ruled that a construction company must return a former employee’s national second-level construction engineer registration certificate and professional seal, and assist with the registration transfer process. The court rejected the company’s argument that the employee must first resolve an underlying labor dispute through arbitration before seeking return of the documents. The case involved no specific monetary damages but centered on the control of professional credentials.
CASE BACKGROUND AND FACTS
Mr. Sheng began working for Xinda Construction Installation Company in Eastern China in March 2006. The parties never signed a written labor contract. During his employment, Mr. Sheng passed the national examination for second-level construction engineer qualification. The company reimbursed his examination-related expenses totaling 1,635 yuan, including fees for books, training, accommodation, and travel.
No formal training service agreement was signed between the parties. Mr. Sheng left the company in early 2008. Despite his departure, the company continued to use his second-level construction engineer registration certificate and professional seal for its business purposes, including maintaining the company’s second-level qualification standards, which required at least 12 registered engineers.
Mr. Sheng needed to change his registration to a new employer but found that the company refused to return his original certificate and seal and would not cooperate with the transfer process. He filed a complaint with the local labor arbitration commission, which declined to accept the case.
COURT PROCEEDINGS AND EVIDENCE
The court heard the case under a simplified procedure. Mr. Sheng submitted his identification, the company’s business license, the arbitration commission’s notice of non-acceptance, and online records showing his certificate had been registered with the company since June 20, 2008.
The company argued that an implied agreement existed requiring employees to leave their certificates with the company after receiving training support. It submitted a company statement, written testimonies from three other employees who voluntarily left their certificates with the company, and the expense reimbursement list.
The court found the company’s internal statement lacked evidentiary value. The testimonies from other employees were not accepted as relevant because each employee’s decision about their certificate was personal and did not prove Mr. Sheng had agreed to the same arrangement. The court accepted the expense list but noted it did not establish any contractual obligation.
COURT FINDINGS AND JUDGMENT
The court held that the company’s training reimbursement was merely fulfillment of its statutory obligation as an employer to provide vocational training. Without a signed training service agreement, the company could not claim Mr. Sheng had agreed to leave his certificate with the company indefinitely.
The court recognized that Mr. Sheng and the company had formed a de facto labor relationship during his two years of actual service, even without a written contract. However, the court rejected the company’s argument that Mr. Sheng must first file a separate arbitration to dissolve the labor relationship before seeking return of his documents. The court found this position inconsistent with legal requirements.
Citing the Ministry of Construction’s Administrative Measures for Registered Construction Engineers, the court stated that construction engineer registration certificates and professional seals must be personally kept by the certificate holder. The company’s continued possession and use of Mr. Sheng’s credentials without his consent was unlawful.
The court ordered the company to return the original registration certificate and professional seal within 15 days of the judgment taking effect, and to assist with completing the registration transfer procedures. The company was also ordered to bear the reduced court fee of 5 yuan.
KEY LEGAL PRINCIPLES
This case establishes several important legal principles. An employer’s reimbursement of training costs does not automatically create a service obligation or the right to retain an employee’s professional credentials. Without a written agreement, the employee retains full ownership and control over their professional qualifications and certificates. The right to possess and use professional registration documents belongs to the individual professional, not the employer, regardless of who paid for the training. A labor relationship dispute does not need to be fully resolved before an employee can seek return of personal property held by the employer.
PRACTICAL INSIGHTS
Employers who invest in employee professional development should execute clear written agreements specifying any service obligations and the handling of professional certificates. Relying on implied agreements or industry practice is insufficient to restrict an employee’s rights. Professional employees should maintain copies of their certificates and registration records. When leaving an employer, they should formally request return of all personal documents in writing. The labor arbitration process is not always a prerequisite for filing certain claims, particularly those involving property rights rather than pure labor disputes.
LEGAL REFERENCES
Labor Contract Law of the People’s Republic of China, Article 9
Labor Law of the People’s Republic of China, Article 68, Paragraph 1
Labor Dispute Mediation and Arbitration Law of the People’s Republic of China, Article 5
Supreme People’s Court Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in Labor Dispute Cases (II), Article 5
Administrative Measures for Registered Construction Engineers (Ministry of Construction, Trial Implementation)
DISCLAIMER
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Laws and regulations may vary by jurisdiction. Readers should consult qualified legal professionals for advice specific to their situation.