Dispute Over Unpaid Wages and Overtime: Employee’s Claim for 64,170 RMB Dismissed
Dispute Over Unpaid Wages and Overtime: Employee’s Claim for 64,170 RMB Dismissed
Case Overview
This case involves an employment dispute where an employee, Mr. Long, sought payment of alleged unpaid wages, a retention bonus, and overtime compensation totaling 64,170 RMB from his former employer, Zhejiang Company Limited. The employee claimed that the company failed to pay a monthly retention fee of 1,500 RMB and owed substantial overtime pay for statutory holidays and rest days. The court, after reviewing evidence including attendance records and payroll documents, ruled in favor of the employer, finding that the employee had been paid according to the agreed terms and failed to prove any overtime work.
Case Background and Facts
Mr. Long began working for Zhejiang Company Limited on March 10, 2009, as a mold worker for electric kettles. He signed a three-year labor contract on March 31, 2009, with a probation period of three months. His monthly salary was set at 4,500 RMB during probation and 6,000 RMB after probation. Mr. Long alleged that the company had agreed to pay an additional 1,500 RMB per month as a “retention fee” or “year-end factory wage,” but the company failed to make these payments. He claimed that after multiple inquiries, the company’s general manager promised to pay later but never did. On June 13, 2010, Mr. Long resigned and demanded payment of the retention fee, his June 2010 salary, and overtime compensation for statutory holidays and rest days. The company denied these claims, stating that the monthly salary of 6,000 RMB already included all compensation and that Mr. Long had never objected to the payment method during his employment.
Court Proceedings and Evidence
The case was initially heard by a court in Eastern China, which ruled against Mr. Long on most claims. Mr. Long appealed to a higher court in Eastern China. During the appeal, Mr. Long submitted new evidence, including audio recordings and witness statements, to support his claims. The company argued that these were not new evidence and that the recordings were incomplete and unreliable. The appellate court examined the evidence and found that the audio recordings did not clearly establish the existence of a separate retention fee. Witness statements were not given in court and thus lacked evidentiary value. The court also reviewed the company’s attendance records and payroll documents, which showed that Mr. Long’s monthly wages had been calculated based on his actual working days plus one rest day per month, consistent with the company’s internal policy.
Court Findings and Judgment
The court found that the labor contract did not specify the number of working days per month or the method of calculating wages. However, from the first month of employment, Mr. Long accepted wages calculated by dividing the monthly salary by the number of days in the month and multiplying by his actual working days plus one rest day. He never raised any objection during his employment. The court held that this method of compensation was mutually agreed upon and did not violate any laws. Regarding the retention fee, the court determined that the alleged 1,500 RMB per month was already included in the monthly salary of 6,000 RMB. As for overtime pay, the attendance records showed no evidence of Mr. Long working on statutory holidays or rest days. The court dismissed Mr. Long’s claim that the attendance records were forged, noting that the payroll amounts matched the recorded attendance from the very first month. The court ordered the company to pay only the outstanding June 2010 salary of 2,516 RMB and rejected all other claims.
Key Legal Principles
The court applied the principle that when a labor contract does not specify working hours or compensation methods, the actual practice accepted by both parties over time can be considered as mutually agreed terms. An employee who accepts wages calculated in a particular manner without objection for an extended period cannot later claim a different calculation method. The burden of proof for overtime work lies with the employee, who must provide credible evidence such as attendance records. A court may reject witness statements if the witnesses do not testify in person. Audio recordings that are incomplete or lack clear content may be deemed insufficient to prove disputed facts.
Practical Insights
This case highlights the importance of clearly specifying all terms of compensation, including base salary, bonuses, and overtime pay, in the employment contract. Employees should review their pay stubs regularly and raise any concerns promptly, as silence may be interpreted as acceptance of the payment method. Employers should maintain accurate attendance records and payroll documents to defend against unfounded claims. When claiming overtime pay, employees must provide concrete evidence, such as time-stamped records or supervisor approvals, rather than relying on verbal promises or incomplete recordings.
Legal References
Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China (2007 Revision), Article 152, Paragraph 1.
Disclaimer
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified attorney for specific legal matters.