Is It A Work-Related Injury? The Court Said "No".

Returning home for lunch at noon on weekdays, I was killed in a car accident when I returned to work.

The decision of the social and social bureau to make a decision not to identify the work-related injury caused a dispute, and the relatives of the deceased filed a lawsuit.

The cognizance of "going to work" became the focus of the case. The Qingpu court finally supported the decision of the Bureau of human resources and social affairs on the basis of evidence and differentiation of jurisprudence.

Ms. Zeng is a native of Jiangsu and has worked for a cleaning service company.

Although the company was in Shanghai, she was assigned to work in a company in her hometown.

The company provides canteens for employees, and usually they eat in the canteen. Employees say they usually eat and rest from 11 to 12.

In February 2015, Mrs Tsang was invited by her elder sister to go to her home for lunch. Because her mother lived in her sister's house, she thought not too far away and could visit her mother, and she agreed.

At the end of the meal, she rode the battery car.

Around 13 p.m. in the afternoon, on the way back to the company, she collided with a car at the intersection, only to see that Ms. Zeng died of her rescue.

The traffic police confirmed that Ms. Tsang was not responsible.

But when applying for a job injury to the people's Insurance Bureau, Ms. Zeng's daughter, Xiao Xu, got a decision not to identify the work injury.

Xiao Xu did not understand, obviously working day, but also to go to work. It should be a traffic accident on the way to work. How can it not be counted as a work-related injury?

So it happened.

She finally chose to sue.

The people's Insurance Bureau believes that Ms. Zeng is an employee of the company involved. The company provides canteen for employees to eat, which means that reasonable and necessary conditions have been provided to meet the basic physiological needs of the staff lunch.

The Plaintiff still goes out to other places for dinner. This behavior is private and not on the way to commute.

After hearing the case, the court held that Ms. Zeng's identity as employee was not controversial, and the focus of the case was "on the way to work".

Analysis of relevant legal provisions and jurisprudence, constitute industrial accidents on the way to work, not only should consider the time of staff departure from the starting place, accident location, should also be from

The purpose of leaving the unit is to consider comprehensively.

In this case, on the one hand, the direct purpose of MS Tsang leaving the unit is to go to her sister's house for dinner, and to visit her mother at the same time is for personal reasons.

On the other hand, according to the employment unit, lunch and rest time is from 11 noon to 11:30, and the time of the accident is 13 PM to 25 p.m., which is more than two hours of lunch break. Obviously, it is not within a reasonable time limit.

In summary, the court held that the accident happened to miss Tsang was not legally recognized.

Or as a case of industrial injury.

Related links:

Huang was originally an employee of A company.

In June 2015, Huang went on a job dispute with the company after requiring him to pay his annual leave.

In order to prove that Huang has taken off the annual leave, in the arbitration trial, the company submitted a Hon leave leave leave table, which is based on Huang's registration form, fingerprint card recording and attendance record of punch card machine, but there is no Hwang's signature.

In addition, the company also submitted a copy of HM monthly salary detailed schedule, but there was no Hwang signature on it.

As for these evidence, Huang did not accept it.

Finally, the local labor and personnel dispute arbitration committee ruled that Huang's request was supported.

Comment on the burden of proof on labor disputes, the sixth provision of the labor dispute mediation and Arbitration Law stipulates: "when a labor dispute occurs, the parties 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 the adverse consequences.

In addition, the thirteenth interpretation of the Supreme People's court's interpretation of several issues concerning the application of law in labor dispute cases stipulates: "the employer shall bear the burden of proof as a result of the decision of the employer to expel, remove, dismiss, rescind the labor contract, reduce labor remuneration, and calculate the working life of workers."

In terms of wages and attendance records, it is the possibility of forgery or tampering by employers. It should be signed and confirmed by laborers in principle.

The employer only provides single evidence such as salary forms and attendance records without labourers, and can not be accepted directly if one worker denies it.

However, if the employer not only provides wages, attendance records, but also provides other relevant evidence to corroborate, such as bank payment of wage vouchers, payroll records, witness testimony, leave of absence, etc., it may be used as a basis for determining the facts of the case.

Therefore, in order to prevent such disputes, employers should establish and improve various rules and regulations, such as improving the wage payment system, defining attendance, overtime and leave system.

In addition, employers need to sort out and file relevant documents and forms in time, leaving as much information as possible, and requiring workers to sign their names.

For more information, please pay attention to the world clothing shoes and hats and Internet cafes.