The Court Held That The Decision Of Salary Adjustment Is Binding On Enterprises.

Because an oil company in Beijing decided to make a promise to Mr. Hu, a project manager of the company, after he lost his wages, he resigned on the grounds that the company owed wages and violated the contract, and asked the company to pay the wage balance and the economic compensation. After labor arbitration and first instance court hearing, the company considers that the company has the right to raise wages and drop its own management rights within the scope of the law, and to reject Mr. Hu's appeal. Mr. Hu appealed. In April 2016, the third intermediate people's Court of Beijing confirmed that the oil company and Mr. Hu's salary adjustment were binding on both parties, and the first instance trial was withdrawn. The company decided to pay Mr. Hu a wage difference and an economic compensation of nearly 160 thousand yuan.

Mr. Hu, more than 40, signed a 5 year contract with an oil company in Beijing in July 2010. Labor contract He served as the manager of the Qinghai Xining project. In March 2014, the company formally informed Mr. Hu that it had adjusted its salary from 11000 yuan a month to 16000 yuan, but it had not been implemented. In March 2015, Mr. Hu proposed to resign, on the grounds that the company had long been in arrears of wages, and applied for labor arbitration and litigation to the court.

During the trial of labour arbitration and first instance court, Mr. Hu said he began to pay 16000 yuan a month in March 2014. To this end, Mr. Hu provided the salary adjustment notice issued by the company's personnel and administration department in March 2014. Hu XX has adjusted its salary to 16000 yuan since March 2014. The notice is signed by the general manager of the company.

For this notice, the agent of the oil company approved the authenticity of the notice, but explained that the background of the wage increase for employees including Mr. Hu was that the company signed an equity transfer agreement with the outsiders. If the agreement can be fulfilled, the company's financial position will be improved, and then the wages of the employees will be improved. After that, the agreement has not been fulfilled in real terms, so the salary increase scheme has not been implemented. There is no case of arrears of Mr. Hu's wages, and the court is requested to reject Mr. Hu's appeal request.

The court of labor arbitration and first instance dismissed Mr. Hu's claim. In the judgment, the court of first instance pointed out that the employing units enjoyed the right of autonomy and management. No less than contract agreement Wage standard Under the circumstances, the employer can adjust the remuneration of the laborers. The employer raises the remuneration of the laborers without the extra payment of the consideration by the laborers, which is a unilateral legal act of the enterprise. When the two sides have not actually fulfilled the new wage standard, they do not constitute a change in the labor contract.

In March 2014, the oil company decided to raise Mr. Hu's remuneration. After that, he did not actually make any adjustments due to other reasons. It was a claim that the employer exercised the right of independent management of the enterprise. He advocated the payment of the wage gap according to his claim, which lacked the legal basis and the court refused to accept it. After the first trial, Mr. Hu refused to accept the appeal to the third intermediate people's Court of Beijing. In the court debate stage, Mr. Hu stressed that the personnel administration department of the oil company Wage adjustment matters "Clearly stated in the" salary increase ", and the document was signed and confirmed by the company's legal representative. It should be regarded as a consensus between the two parties, and the change of the labor contract was completed in writing. The salary adjustment is valid for both parties.

After hearing the trial, the third intermediate people's Court of Beijing held that the focus of controversy in this case was Mr. Hu's monthly wage standard after March 2014. The document issued by the company to improve Mr. Hu's remuneration and remuneration is a unilateral legal act of the enterprise. However, the act has informed Mr. Hu that the increase in remuneration is beneficial to the laborers. If they do not raise objections to the salary, they should be regarded as a consensus between the two parties and completed the change of the labor contract in written form, which is binding on both parties.

As for the lack of actual implementation of the agreement on the transfer of shares between the company and the outsider, the proposal of the failure to implement the pay increase scheme is lacking, and the court will not recognize it. At the same time, the court held that, in the event of a labor dispute, the parties concerned have the responsibility to provide evidence for their claims. The evidence relating to the dispute is under the control of the employing unit, and the employing unit shall provide it. If the employer fails to provide the evidence, it shall bear adverse consequences. The company did not prove that the pay adjustment was not implemented, and Mr. Hu did not approve of the company's failure to implement it.

Based on the above, Mr. Hu's monthly salary rose to 16000 yuan in March 2014, which was approved in the second instance. In addition, because of the company's arrears of wages, Mr. Hu put forward the termination of labor relations on the grounds that he complies with the law, and Mr. Hu appealed to the petroleum company to pay the economic compensation for the cancellation of the labor contract by 80000 yuan, which is supported by the law.

In April 2016, the court of second instance ruled that the judgment of the court of first instance should be revoked. The oil company paid Mr. Hu's wage difference of 77698.79 yuan, and the economic compensation for the dissolution of the labor contract was 80000 yuan. The case ended with the employee's victory. This reporter prompts the vast majority of employers to make prudent decisions when making major decisions concerning the vital interests of workers.