Hello, I'm Erhua.
OPPO (this branch) broke a bone at the end of the year
At the end of February, a reporter from Tech Planet learned that the IoT (Internet of Things) business group carried out personnel [optimization], and the year-end bonus was discounted by 3, and OPPO responded at that time: "The relevant rumors are not true. ”
After 3 weeks, to the base camp of this branch to issue the end of the year, now began to notify one after another, the last day of the month issued, did not expect that after the lottery, it was significantly lower than the general expectations of employees, and there was a lot of scolding.
On the other hand, with the announcement of results, OPPO has also made small layoffs, some with a lastday of 3.31 and some in mid-April.
Today, let's focus on the year-end bonus.
As soon as the year-end award was announced, employees clamored for rights defense organizations.
The reason why employees are so indignant is because of """.
However, rights protection is not a duty, this time the branch only requires employees to do their duty, but they are "not duty" [dog head].
How much is the specific discount at the end of this year, some Android developers said, performance A, corresponding to 5 discounts; Performance B, corresponding to 3 folds, of course, there are 3.5 folds and 4 folds, there is a conversion factor, and performance B accounts for the majority of colleagues.
If you defend your rights, is there a high probability of success?
Mainly because many labor contracts have clauses that stipulate "depending on the company's operating conditions", many people feedback that they remember that it is a clause of "fixed salary, ignoring the company's operating conditions", and it is recommended that you turn it out and look for it. If not, go to the labor bureau to arbitrate first, but you may have to go to litigation.
Case 1: An employee (who claimed an annual bonus after being laid off) sued Baidu for "deferred subsidy for year-end bonus"
Employee Wang demanded that Baidu Online pay compensation for illegal termination of labor contract, year-end bonus postponement subsidy, year-end bonus, untaken annual leave salary, rest day overtime pay, delayed overtime pay, and stock compensation.
The Beijing Labor and Personnel Dispute Arbitration Commission made a ruling (the specific award can only be received by the parties and cannot be queried online), both parties are not satisfied (both parties are not satisfied, it may be that both parties play 50 big boards, which is also the characteristic of labor arbitration, labor arbitration is not a judicial organ, and the mediation component is more), both parties initiated an appeal, and the case was transferred to the Beijing Haidian District People's Court for civil litigation. Sister Hua will wait to track the results.
Case 2: The employer (who claims the year-end bonus on the job) should bear the burden of proof on the basis and policy of the issuance of the year-end bonus, otherwise it must bear the consequences of failing to provide evidence
Case No.: (2021) Hu 01 Min Zhong No. 10101
Facts of the case: On September 12, 2018, the parent company of AN Company issued an "Offer Notice" to Tang through the company's mailbox, stating that Tang served as the company's legal director with a monthly salary of 40,000 yuan. According to the company's performance and personal performance evaluation, Tang's annual target performance bonus is 30% of the whole year (fixed salary + fixed overtime allowance), if the service period is less than one year, the bonus payment will be converted accordingly, please refer to the company's bonus policy for details. On December 1, 2018, Tang entered the AN Shanghai company to work, and on January 15, 2020, Tang filed an arbitration due to the company's arrears of labor remuneration, etc., demanding that the company pay his 2019 performance bonus of 312,000 yuan.
First-instance view: Regarding Tang's claim that AN pay the 2019 performance bonus. In this regard, the court of first instance held that according to Tang's "Employment Notice", according to the company's performance and personal performance evaluation, Tang's annual target performance bonus was 30% of the whole year (fixed salary + fixed overtime allowance), indicating that according to Tang's annual fixed salary of 40,000 yuan per month and 30% of the standard of fixed overtime allowance of 46,000 yuan per month, Tang could receive a performance bonus of 312,000 yuan per year. According to Article 3.3 of the Labor Contract between the two parties, Tang's performance bonus is determined by the company to decide whether to pay and the amount according to the company's profitability and the performance of individuals and departments. The details of such bonuses are subject to the Company's bonus policy. It explained that Tang should perform the relevant procedures to obtain the above-mentioned performance bonus, but AN Company, as an employer, did not provide relevant bonus policies for this, nor did it conduct performance appraisal of Tang's work throughout the year, and only refused to pay bonuses on the grounds of the company's operating losses, which obviously violated its bonus commitment to employees.
Second-instance view: Although Article 3.3 of the Labor Contract also stipulates that Tang's performance bonus will be decided whether to be issued and issued by the company according to the company's profitability and personal and departmental performance, and the specific circumstances of such bonuses shall be subject to the company's bonus policy, on the one hand, considering that AN Company did not provide a bonus policy, nor did it provide that Tang had been assessed and the assessment did not meet the standards, on the other hand, the "Labor Contract" of the two parties also clearly stipulated the "Employment Notice" on matters such as remuneration and overtime If there are corresponding provisions, the provisions of the "Employment Notice" shall be implemented, so the court of first instance ruled that it was not improper for AN to pay Tang the 2019 performance award in accordance with the standards of the "Employment Notice".
Judgment Result: AN Company paid Tang a 2019 performance bonus of RMB 312,000 within ten days from the effective date of this judgment.
The adjudication rules of the Shanghai First Intermediate People's Court on year-end bonuses are more friendly to employers, but Shanghai will not determine that employers need to pay year-end bonuses solely based on the practice of payment.
Engage in "responsibility system"
In addition to iFLYTEK's performance retrospective "employees pouring money to the company", Fanwei (a small and medium-sized enterprise OA office SAAS service company) has recently begun to innovate in "management".
If a bug is developed, you will be charged.
In this way, in the future, the company may make money and generate revenue NO.1.
【Statement】
Some of the information and pictures come from the open network
Please contact directly by message for invasion and deletion
Please credit the author and source for reprinting
Recommended reading
Google layoffs maliciously compensate N+9+ stock | If I off, I'll do it
What is Huawei's "Ning O in, for block art" terrier?
Experience Hangzhou Zoom cut 15% of employees The school recruits more than 6 million yuan in 5 years
Kuaishou employees reported PUA internally under their real names: the project did not benefit from performance A, and responded to on the way
Hello friends
Here is Erhua's pan-Internet industry Xiaoya
Thousands of little croaks, real people
The factories are really getting more and more
"The more secrecy you keep internally, the more transparent you are externally"
Join the group to exchange gossip & cooperation related
Welcome to send a private message to Hana Xiaosuke