On 12 December 2023, the Supreme Folks’s Court docket (SPC) launched a draft Interpretation on Points In regards to the Utility of Regulation in Employment Disputes (II) (the Draft), in search of public session. Though the Draft isn’t closing, it displays the SPC’s views on related employment points and the judicial traits in China. On this replace, we spotlight the important thing factors.

The character of share incentive disputes

The classification of share incentive disputes has been a contentious problem amongst courts throughout numerous areas. Some think about these disputes as employment-related, whereas others categorise them as contractual disputes.

The Draft seems to lean in the direction of recognising share incentives as a type of remuneration, thus categorising disputes associated to the grant of share incentives as employment disputes. Specifically, the Draft stipulates that when an employer gives share incentives as a type of remuneration to an worker, any dispute that arises from the worker’s request for the employer to make fee below the share incentive or to compensate the worker for any loss associated to the share incentive will be categorized as an employment dispute. Nonetheless, a dispute that arises from the train of shareholding rights won’t be thought-about as an employment dispute, although the scope of such disputes isn’t clearly outlined.

Limitation interval for double wage claims attributable to failure to execute employment contract

If an employer neglects to ascertain a written employment contract with an worker for greater than a month, the worker has the fitting to file a declare towards the employer for double their wage for every month of employment. Nonetheless, this declare is capped at a yr from the beginning of employment.

Below PRC regulation, the limitation interval to carry an employment declare will depend on whether or not the declare constitutes a declare involving underpaid remuneration. The place the declare does not contain underpaid remuneration, a ‘basic’ one-year limitation interval applies which begins from the date a celebration turns into conscious or ought to have turn into conscious of their rights being infringed.

The place the declare includes underpaid remuneration, a ‘particular’ statute of limitations applies such that the declare isn’t certain by the one-year limitation interval; nevertheless, if the employment relationship ends, a one-year limitation interval applies from the cessation of the employment.

The Draft now clearly gives {that a} declare for double wage as a result of employer’s failure to ascertain a written employment contract doesn’t represent a declare for underpaid remuneration and due to this fact the final limitation interval applies.

Aside from clarifying the character of the declare and whether or not the final one-year limitation interval applies, the Draft additionally gives readability on when the one-year limitation interval begins on condition that there are differing judicial views on the matter.

Courts in a number of areas are likely to view the whole lot of the fee owed to an worker as a single declare when calculating the limitation interval, and think about the limitation interval to run from the day the worker is now not entitled to the double wage (i.e., the day after the conclusion of a written employment contract, or the day after one full yr’s service). For instance, if no written employment contract is concluded for a couple of yr, the limitation interval begins to run the day after the primary yr of service is accomplished and an worker might carry a declare for a most of 11 months of double wage (from the second month as much as one yr’s service).

Nonetheless, one other view is that the limitation interval begins the day after one full month from when the employer was alleged to conclude a written employment contract.

The Draft gives that the latter view prevails. This implies it’ll now not be attainable to deal with the whole lot of the declare as a single declare. For any portion of the declare that has already exceeded the one-year basic limitation interval, the worker’s declare will probably be time barred.

Limitation interval for unpaid additional time pay and compensation for untaken annual depart

Whereas courts throughout numerous areas think about a declare for unpaid additional time pay as a declare for employment remuneration topic to the particular limitation interval, compensation for untaken annual depart isn’t normally considered in the identical manner. Most courts have a tendency to use the final limitation interval for compensation for untaken annual depart. Consequently, many employers solely have to compensate workers for untaken annual depart throughout the previous two years, or three years in circumstances the place the untaken annual depart will be carried over to the following yr.

The Draft gives that if an worker asserts that the particular limitation interval for untaken annual depart and additional time needs to be utilized, the court docket ought to help this declare. This means that each compensation for untaken annual depart and additional time pay will probably be thought-about as employment remuneration and, due to this fact, topic to the particular limitation interval. For the reason that compensation for every year’s untaken annual depart is now not topic to a one-year limitation interval, employers will due to this fact seemingly have to compensate workers for all untaken statutory annual depart accrued throughout their employment interval.

Employment safety for workers who’ve reached retirement age

The prevailing view is that an employer can finish the employment contract with an worker as soon as the worker reaches the statutory retirement age, even when they haven’t began receiving pension insurance coverage advantages, as long as the employer has complied with their obligations to make social insurance coverage contributions. If the worker needs to proceed to work for the employer after they attain the statutory retirement age, events might enter right into a service settlement which isn’t ruled by employment regulation, and will be freely negotiated.

The Draft now stipulates that if an worker has reached the statutory retirement age however has not but began receiving fundamental pension insurance coverage advantages and continues to work for an employer, the worker might proceed to carry a declare over employment remuneration, working hours, relaxation and vacation, employment safety, occupational hazard prevention, and work harm insurance coverage advantages in accordance with employment legal guidelines and rules, and the court docket ought to help the worker’s declare.

In different phrases, the Draft strengthens the safety of worker rights in that workers who’ve reached retirement age however haven’t but obtained pension insurance coverage will proceed to obtain some key protections below employment regulation. If the Draft is carried out, employers might want to assess their method as regards workers who’ve reached their retirement age.

Lawful unilateral changes to job positions

The Draft outlines a listing of standards for assessing whether or not an employer’s unilateral changes to job positions and work areas are lawful. Specifically, any adjustment to a job place or work location is taken into account illegal the place it:

• violates the employment contract or the employer’s insurance policies;
• isn’t pushed by the employer’s goal wants for enterprise and operation;
• ends in unfavourable adjustments to the worker’s wage or different employment situations with out offering mandatory help or compensation to the worker;
• ends in a change to the job place which the worker objectively will probably be unable to fulfil;
• includes discriminatory or insulting circumstances; or
• violates legal guidelines or rules.

The Draft additional gives that if an employer unlawfully adjusts the job place or work location, the worker can request to terminate the employment contract and search financial compensation, on the grounds of the employer’s failure to offer the required employment situations.

Key Takeaways

The judicial interpretations issued by the SPC carry authorized impact and may instantly function the premise for court docket judgments, making certain nationwide uniformity in court docket choices on related circumstances. Though the present Draft might bear additional revisions earlier than it turns into efficient, it gives employers with perception into the course of judicial traits. Employers ought to proceed to observe this house for amendments and updates to the Draft.

中国：最高法发布劳动争议最新司法解释草案

2023年12月12日，最高人民法院（“最高法”）发布了《关于审理劳动争议案件适用法律问题的解释（二）》的草案（“草案”），向社会公开征求意见。当前的草案虽然不是最终生效版本，但在一定程度上反映了最高法对相关雇佣问题的观点以及中国的司法趋势。我们在本次更新中整理了一些值得关注的事项。

股权激励纠纷的性质

各地法院有关股权激励争议的性质一直以来都存在着争议，有些地区认为其属于劳动争议，有些地区则认为其属于合同纠纷。

草案似乎倾向于认可股权激励的劳动报酬属性，将请求给付股权激励标的、赔偿股权激励损失的纠纷认定为劳动争议。草案规定，用人单位基于劳动关系以股权激励方式为劳动者发放劳动报酬，劳动者请求用人单位给付股权激励标的或者赔偿股权激励损失发生的纠纷属于劳动争议。有一个例外是，“因行使股权发生的纠纷” 不属于劳动争议，不过草案并没有明确界定此类行使股权纠纷的具体范围。

未签订劳动合同的二倍工资的仲裁时效

若用人单位自用工之日起超过一个月未与劳动者订立书面劳动合同，劳动者有权要求用人单位每月支付二倍的工资，但该二倍工资的期限不得超过自用工之日起一年。

根据中国法，提起劳动相关请求的时效取决于该请求是否涉及拖欠劳动报酬。当一项劳动争议不涉及拖欠劳动报酬时，应适用期限为一年的“普通”时效，从当事人知道或者应当知道其权利被侵害之日起计算。

当一项劳动争议涉及拖欠报酬时，应适用“特殊”时效，不受一年普通时效期间限制；但劳动关系终止的，时效期间为自劳动关系终止之日起一年。

根据当前的这份草案，未签订书面劳动合同的二倍工资不属于劳动报酬，因此相关纠纷应当适用普通仲裁时效。

除了明确了二倍工资的性质以及一年普通时效的适用，草案还明确了该一年仲裁时效的起算时间，这可能可以统一当前不同地区的司法观点。

目前在实践中，有些地区倾向于将员工应得的所有二倍工资作为一个整体来计算时效，因此时效从员工不再有权获得二倍工资之日起计算（即，签订书面劳动合同次日，或用工满一年的次日）。例如，如用人单位超过一年都没有与员工签订书面劳动合同，二倍工资的时效自用工之日起满一年的次日开始计算，员工最高有权获得11个月（从实际用工之日起第二个月至一年）的二倍工资。

另一种观点是，仲裁时效应当自用人单位应当订立劳动合同之日起满一个月的次日起计算。

草案支持了第二种观点。这意味着所有的二倍工资将无法作为一个整体来主张；对于已经超过了一年的那部分二倍工资，员工的主张将受到时效限制。

加班费与未休年休假补偿的仲裁时效

加班费被视作劳动报酬因此适用特殊仲裁时效是各地实践中的通行观点，而未休年假补偿并非如此。多数法院认为未休年假补偿应适用普通仲裁时效。因此很多雇主只需对员工两年内或（在未休年假流转至下一年的情况下）三年内的未休年假进行补偿。

草案规定，劳动者主张用人单位支付未休年休假工资报酬、加班费的仲裁时效适用特殊仲裁时效的，人民法院应予支持。这意味着未休年休假补偿和加班费都将被视作劳动报酬适用特殊仲裁时效。由于每年的未休年休补偿不再受一年的时效限制，雇主可能因此需要对员工在职期间的所有未休法定年假进行补偿。

达到退休年龄员工的权益保护

当前实践的主流观点认为，只要员工达到了法定退休年龄，即使未享受养老保险待遇，用人单位在不存在社保缴纳过错的前提下可以终止双方的劳动合同。在此后，如果员工继续在用人单位处工作，双方可以签订不受劳动法管辖的服务协议，并自由约定协议条款。

草案现在规定，达到法定退休年龄但是尚未享受基本养老保险待遇的劳动者为用人单位提供劳动，劳动者请求参照适用劳动法律法规处理劳动报酬、工作时间、休息休假、劳动保护、职业危害防护以及工伤保险待遇等争议的，人民法院应予支持。

换言之，草案加强了对达到退休年龄但尚未享受养老保险的员工的权益保护，使得他们能够继续受到劳动法下的一些关键保护。若此草拟规定生效实施，许多雇主需要重新评估其与退休返聘员工的协议条款。

岗位调整的审查

草案列明了用人单位单方调整工作岗位、工作地点的审查标准。具体来说，符合以下情形的工作岗位、工作地点调整被认定为违法：

（一） 不符合劳动合同的约定或者用人单位规章制度规定的；

（二） 非出于用人单位生产经营客观需要的；

（三） 劳动者的工资及其他劳动条件存在不利变更且未提供必要协助或者补偿措施的；

（四） 劳动者客观上不能胜任调整后的工作岗位的；

（五） 存在歧视性、侮辱性等情形的；

（六） 违反法律、行政法规等规定的。

此外，草案还规定，用人单位违法调整工作岗位、工作地点，员工可以以用人单位不提供劳动条件为由，要求解除劳动合同并支付经济补偿。

要点总结

最高法发布的司法解释具有法律效力，可以直接作为法院的裁判依据，因此将统一全国范围内法院对类似案件的判决。当前发布的草案虽然在生效前还将继续修改，但给了雇主一些司法风向上的提示。各雇主应当持续关注该司法解释的修订与发布动态。