Hot Search! An employee’s demand for overtime pay of NT$116,000 for “malicious overtime” was rejected, and the court ruled

On May 30, the topic of employees asking for NT$116,000 in overtime pay but being rejected by the company became a hot search topic on Weibo, arousing heated discussions among netizens. Netizens all said: This situation should be rectified...

Recently, such a case asking for overtime pay was published online in China’s judicial documents. The case shows that an employee of a hotel management company in Beijing claimed that he worked overtime for a total of 23 days on weekends and 1,200.8 hours on weekdays, and requested the company to pay overtime pay of 116,000 yuan. However, the company only recognized 54.5 hours as valid overtime, and claimed that the excess was false overtime and malicious overtime.

In this regard, both parties went to court. In the end, the court ruled that the company should pay the employee 56,000 yuan in delayed overtime wages.

Employees' request for overtime pay of NT$116,000 was rejected.

Company: False and malicious overtime work!

According to the China Judgment Documents Network, employee Lu Moumou joined a hotel management company in Beijing on July 26, 2018, with a monthly salary of 9,000 yuan, and the labor contract period is from July 26, 2018 to July 25, 2021. The labor contract It is agreed that the comprehensive calculation of working hours system will be implemented, and overtime work of Party B (Lu Moumou) must be approved or confirmed in writing by the person in charge of the department.

On July 16, 2021, the two parties signed the "Labor Contract Termination Agreement". Later, Lu applied for arbitration to the Beijing Shunyi District Arbitration Commission, requiring the company to pay overtime pay of 116,025.51 yuan from July 26, 2018 to July 25, 2021, and to pay 36,717.83 yuan in economic compensation for the termination of the labor relationship.

On September 27, 2021, the Shunyi District Arbitration Commission made a ruling in support of the above request. In this regard, the company expressed dissatisfaction and filed a lawsuit with the People's Court of Shunyi District, Beijing. The company believes that the "Labor Contract Termination Agreement" becomes legally effective as soon as it is signed and sealed by both parties.

Lu Moumou said that during his employment, he worked overtime on weekends and delayed overtime, and the company did not pay overtime wages. According to his statistics, he worked overtime on weekends for a total of 23 days and 1,200.8 hours of delayed overtime. He submitted a report from July 26, 2018 to 2021 Electronic attendance printouts and internal overtime and leave application forms during June 29, 2019 are supported.

The company recognized that the effective overtime was calculated as 54.5 hours, and considered the excess to be false overtime and malicious overtime.

What is "malicious overtime"? Lawyer Guo Zheng, a member of the Lawyer Expert Database of "Rule of Law Daily" and a partner of Beijing Tianchi Juntai Law Firm, said that malicious overtime work means that some workers have low work efficiency during the day, fail to complete the labor quota tasks, actively apply for overtime before get off work, or work normally Those who extend their working hours after work, or stay in the company after get off work for reasons other than work reasons, and claim overtime pay for that period from the company after leaving the company.

Common judgment criteria include: whether workers work overtime due to work needs, whether workers complete labor quota tasks during working hours, whether what workers do during overtime is work tasks, whether workers handle personal affairs during overtime, etc.

The court’s first-instance judgment:

The company paid 56,000 yuan in delayed overtime wages

Based on the pleading opinions of both parties, the court determined the number of delayed overtime hours for Lu based on the electronic attendance record and position status submitted by Lu and the internal overtime/shift leave approval form submitted by the company, and calculated the total delayed overtime wages. 56428.45 yuan.

According to the court's first-instance judgment, the company needs to pay Lu Moumou 56,428.45 yuan in delayed overtime wages.

Both parties appealed, and the second instance still upheld the original verdict.

The company expressed dissatisfaction with the court's first-instance judgment and appealed to the Beijing No. 3 Intermediate People's Court, requesting that the company be changed to a judgment that the company does not need to pay Lu Moumou's overtime wages in accordance with the law. The reason is: employees working overtime must comply with the unit's overtime approval regulations. False overtime and malicious overtime without approval or with incomplete approval will inevitably damage the interests of the unit, cause an imbalance of rights and obligations, and violate the basic principles of labor laws. The court of first instance determined that delayed overtime work was 91 days, which was much higher than Lu's approved overtime hours. Therefore, the court of first instance’s calculation of Lu Moumou’s overtime salary of 56,428.45 yuan was obviously improper.

At the same time, Lu Moumou was not satisfied with the first-instance judgment and appealed to the Beijing Third Intermediate People's Court, arguing that the first-instance court did not support overtime pay for weekends and should change the judgment to increase overtime pay for weekends.

The Beijing No. 3 Intermediate People's Court held that, based on the pleading opinions of both parties, the focus of the dispute in this case is: how to determine the amount of Lu Moumou's overtime pay. Specifically, it can be divided into how to determine the delayed overtime pay and whether the company should pay him overtime pay on weekends. .

Regarding overtime work on rest days, based on the approval procedures submitted by the company, the labor contract stipulations, and the situation of Lu's position, it can be proved that the comprehensive calculation of working hours is actually implemented in his position. According to relevant regulations, the comprehensive calculation of working hours system uses weekly, monthly, quarterly and yearly cycles to comprehensively calculate working hours. Working days that fall on rest days are considered normal work. Therefore, the court of first instance did not support Lu’s claim for overtime pay on rest days and There is no impropriety, and the court confirmed this.

In the end, the court of second instance rejected the appeal and upheld the original verdict.

Lawyer: When workers’ legitimate rights and interests are infringed,

Pay attention to retain relevant evidence

Lawyer Guo Zheng reminded that in practice, if such a situation occurs, workers bear a heavier burden of proof for claiming overtime pay. Therefore, when workers' legitimate rights and interests are infringed, they should pay attention to retaining relevant evidence, including but not limited to overtime punch-in records, attendance records, overtime notices, overtime approval forms, chat records of communication with leaders about work content, etc.

At the same time, when I do have to work overtime due to work needs, but the employer does not pay overtime wages on the grounds that the overtime work has not been approved in advance, I can check whether the company has rules and regulations regarding overtime approval, whether the rules and regulations have been democratically formulated, Defend from the perspective of whether to inform the person, whether to make a public announcement, etc., in order to protect one's legitimate rights and interests.

Topic Selection Planning | Rule of Law Network Research Institute

Text | Zheng Chunxin

Source: Rule of Law Network