最新劳动合同法案例解读

1、最新劳动合同法案例解 读 / Cases Analysis on LatestPRC Labor ContractLaw案例1 何为劳动 者金女士是某公司的 业务员 ,享受利润提成;同时又是公司的承包 负责人,享受销售 提成。本案的关键就在于对于金女士的双重身份如何 认定。支持公司的律 师认为只 能认定金女士业务员身份,让其享受利润提成;支持金女士的律 师认为应当认定金 女士双重身份 ,让其享受利润提成和销售提成。 案情回放 金女士是上海某 锅炉公 司的一名 员工,按公司 惯例,劳动 合同一年一 签,岗位为财务负责 人。后来,公司 内部 经营体制转换,开始实行承包制。深谙前景可观的金女士立 马

2、联合该公司另一 名员 工打上了承包的主意 ,并和公司 签订了一份经营承包责任书。责任书约 定 ,承包人 在搞好公司 经营 管理工作、拟订有关销售政策和相关管理制度的同 时,应 按承包当 年实现的利润额 度进行相 应的利润提成。具体而言,就是只要金女士当年 完成 10万 的利润指标,就可以按利 润部分的60%进行提成。同时,金女士的 岗位也 从之前的 财 务负责人变更为总经理助理兼 业务员,工资为1000元。 金女士承包公司 之后,作为 公司掌管 经营权的负责人,对公司以前 实行的营销管理办法进行了 相应的更改, 不过并没有经过其他股东的认可。该办法规定金女士的销售额业绩如 果当年达到50 万元

3、,就可以作为业务员参与业务获取一定的销售提成。 承包2年之 后,金女士因种 种原因向公司提出辞 职,并要求公司支付其利 润提成和 销售提成共 计47万余元 ,公 司拒绝,双方引发争议。 金女士认为,经营承包责任书规定了 自己的利 润提成标 准,而营销管理办法则规定了自己的 销售提成 ,一个是自己 的经营利润提成,一个 是自己的 销售提成。而承包期间,自己均实现了上述指 标, 两项算下来,公司应支付自 己47万余元的提成。 而公司则认为,金女士与公司之 间 是承包 经营关系,并不是 劳 动关系,双方之间仅应 适用经营承包责任书,而不 包括营销管理办法。营销管 理方法应该是针对公司的 营业员 的,

4、况且, 营销管理办法是金女士取得公司的 经营权之后以公司代理人的身份自己修 订的内 部管理文件 ,即使有效 ,也只能适用由其聘用的 业务员,不应适用于金女士本人。 因 此,公司只同意按经营承包 责任书的约定,支付给金女士承包利 润4万元。金女士和公司之 间是承包经营 关系还是劳动关系呢 ?作为公司高管的金女士擅自制定 对外实行的利 润分配文件是否有效呢 ? 法律背景 劳动者这一词在许多学科领域都 有其特定的意思 ,在劳动法学中,劳动者指与雇主相 对应的雇佣劳动者,对于企业 管 理者、经理人等行使着雇主 权利的强势劳工是否应当被纳入劳动者的范 围在我国 争 议由来以久。参考国外立法 ,对于劳动者

5、的范围有着比较严密的限定 ,管理者、 经理 人、合伙人等拥有指挥权的人并不属于 劳动法调整的主体。但我国的 现行立法 对于 劳动者的范 围限定的非常 宽广,上至老 总、经理下至普通工人 ,都被认定在 劳 动者范 围内,受劳动法保护。 造成我国法律 对劳动 者定义过宽 的根本原因在于立法 者缺乏 对雇主概念的认识。雇主作为劳动者的相对方,指代表用人 单位行使对劳动 者的指 挥管理权的人。以前在以国有制 为主的经济体制下,管理者仅是国家,众人 对雇主的 概念缺乏 认识,但如今在多元化 经济体制下 ,单位中行使管理 权的人和被 管理者的界 限日 渐分明,对于那一部分握有管理 权的员工确有必要重新 认

6、定。 划分 雇主与普通 劳动者曾是劳动合同法立法反复争论的问题,但令人惋惜的是 这样 的划分最 终没 有实现,在劳动合同法中并没有对雇主和 劳动者的概念加以区分 ,这也就意味着在 国际上普遍有着成熟 经验的情况下,我国立法依然沿用着在用人 单位工作的 员工均 可被视为劳动 者的大概念。 律师舌战 擅自修改的营销管理办 法应属无效 上 海市正达律 师事务所 汤家怀律师（支持用人 单位一方 观点: 我认为,公司只能对她的承包利 润进行给付,而不能承担她 销售收入的提成。 首先,金女士与用人 单位既存在经营承包关系 ,又存在劳动关系。尽管经营承包责任 书 是双方真实意思的表示 ,也不违反法律强制性规

7、定,合法有效 ,但承包经营关 系仅仅是劳动关系当中 劳动报酬的一种分配方式 ,这种分配方式是在 经营承包责任书 当明确约定的,因此双方 劳动关系的存在是毋庸 质疑的。 其次,本案中的 这个营 销管理办法有两个性质,一个是利 润分配;还有一个是具有企 业规章制度和 绩 效考 核的性 质。对于利润分配来 说,一个公司的利 润分配,首先应该由董事会制定 提出, 然后由股 东会决 议通过。但本案中的情况 ,显然是并没有 经过董事会制定提 出,也没 有通过股东会决议通过。一个没有经过董事会和股 东会双重认可的利润分 配方案 肯定不能是有效的 ,她只能是金女士自己作 为总经理助理越 权制定的,因此,作为利

8、润分配的性 质是无效的。 再次,从内容上来看 ,我认为前后的这两个文件 是有冲突的 ,后面的营销管理办法实际上对前面的承包经营责 任书的一种 变 更。那么,就需要看一看 这个变更是不是一个符合法律的 变更,是不是一个有效 的 变更?在内容上 ,承包经营责任书和修改之后的营销管理办法都是有关 权利 和义务的约定,主体都是公司和金女士。而差异即在于 营销 管理办法恰恰是金 女士自己擅自修改的 ,并没有得到公司的 认可和事后追 认。这样 的一种变更不 是 双方当事人意思表示一致的 变更,而是单方面的无效变更,因此只能适用 责任书 的 规定。 营销管理办法实施两年之久未被宣告 废止,应为有效 上海雷曼

9、律 师 事 务所 郑天生律 师（支持 劳动者一方 观点: 首先,金女士与公司之 间是劳动关 系。 一方面 ,从实质意义上来考查,尽管公司与金女士在形式上 签订了经营承包 责任 书,但实质 上金女士在公司并不能 实现“自主经营 、独立核算、自负盈亏”,即不符 合“承包经营责任制”所定义的自主经营、自负盈亏的经营管理制度 ,因 此公司与 金女士之 间不存在法定意 义上的承包 经营关系。这份经营承包责任书充其量不 过是一份金女士与公司之 间达成的“目标利润工作任 务”而已,只要金女 士完成了 该“任务”就,能获得利润部分的 60%的“奖励”。另一方面,金女士在 公司的身份是 “总经理助理兼 业务员”

10、且,仍然享有月薪 1000元的工资待遇,她与 公司之 间仍然存 在着“管理与被管理 ”的关系,即金女士只不 过是在公司的管理下 ,为实现公司下达 的利润指标而努力工作的高 级管理人员。 其次,金女士修改 过的 营销管理办法 应当被认定为有效。一方面,根据经营承包责任书的约定, 公司及公司股 东已经授权金女士有 “拟定有关销售政策和相关管理制度 ”的权力, 因此,修改营销管理办法应在其中。另一方面 ,虽然金女士修改 过的营销 管 理 办法没有及时经其他股 东“认可”但,一个不可否 认的事实是该修改过的营 销管 理办法在公司已经实施2年之久,在这2年当中 ,公司股东及有关 领导没有理 由不 知晓该

11、营销 管理办法的存在。到金女士辞职时,该营销管理办法也没 有被股 东大会或者公司董事会以 “决议”的形式宣告 废止。况且,在这2年中,其他 业务员 都 在按照该营销管理办法进行销售提成,这一点公司股 东及有关领导也 没有理由 不知晓。根据以上事实,我们完全能够认定公司股 东已经用其实际行动对 该营销 管理办法予以了追认。金女士作为公司高 级管理人 员的同时,也是公司的业务员 ,因此也应该适用。 最终裁决 法院认为,金女士系被告承包人之一 ,但 又 兼被告的 业务员 ,根据营销管理办法,被告规定在近两年原告 销售额指标均为50万 元, 被告完成 销售指标,付出了被告要求的 劳动,应得到相 应的报

12、酬,现原告要 求依据管 理办法提取相应的提成也是合情合理的。故判决公司支付相 应提成款47万 元。 专 家点 评 合理界定所有者、经营者、劳动者三者的关系 华东政法大学劳 动法专家 董保华教授 本案从判决 结果上来看,是劳动者获得了完全的 胜诉,其诉讼请求全部都得到了支持。我认为对于这样的一个判决 ,在现有法制环境下,应 该 说法院的判决是 对的。在我国现有的法制 环境下 ,劳动 者的概念是非常 宽泛的,上 至总经理,甚至董事 长,下至普通老百姓 ,都是劳动法所定义的劳动者。只要 劳动 关系一旦确 认,劳动关系所带来的有关 劳动报酬的所有内容他都是可以享受的 。所 以从现有的法律框架来看 ,法

13、院这样判决是 对的,因为法官不能擅自越 过现有 的法 制环境。 但是现有的这种法制环境我认为是不好的、并不是很理想的 ,因为按 照这 种法制环境一直往前走的 话,最后很容易造成我 们国家很多企 业领导者只负盈不负 亏,做好了他可以拿 奖金,做不好他不用 负责 任。因为当经营者和劳动者的身 份结合 在一个人身上 时,是很容易 产生问题的。 我认为在一个更理想的法制 环境应 该是, 所有者、经营者、劳动 者都得到适当的界定。比如在大部分欧美国家 ,经营 者是被 排除出劳动者的范畴的 ,作为经营者是不受 劳动法约束的。本来在这次劳 动合同法 的起草 过程中,正好是一个机会 ,可以把经营者从劳动者范围

14、中驱逐出 去,因为经营 者和所有者之 间其实是一种委任关系 ,并不是 劳动关系;反过来,经 营者接受委任之 后将代表所有者 ,去和劳动者形成 劳动关系,它其实是一个雇主的 概念。但可惜的是 最终立法者未有任何 这方面的 动作。 而具体到本案 ,我个人 认为 这两个行为就是 有冲突的。事实上的 这个结果,从销售员的角度来看 ,金女士拿的 是大头,但这其实 是有违他们最初所 签订的承包经营责任书的初衷的。而这个 问题不仅仅 在劳动 关系领域会存在,在各种关系中都会存在 这个问题。很多经营者 都会按照自己的方 便去做 ,把自己既当成运 动员 又当成裁判 员。但事实上,这两种 行 为是有抵触的。在 大

15、部分国家 ,裁判就是裁判 ,运动员就是运 动员,法律一般都 会做出一个很清楚的界 定 ,如果是以管理者 为主就是委任合同 ,如果是被管理 为主就是劳动关系。本案中其实很清楚,金女士就是以管理者 为主的,按理应该 是一个 委 任关系,但是从结果上来看 ,她就变成以劳动报酬为主了。可见,我们国家劳动 法领 域的这样一个运行 结构显然是不够合理的。当然面对这样的不合理 ,法官也无 能为 力。所以从现行法制的 环境来看,似乎付出了两份 劳动,即付出了管理者的 劳 动又付 出了销售员的劳动,就应该拿两份 报酬。但大家似乎不大会考 虑我们国家经 常发生 这样一种情况,就是利用经营者的身份可以 获得很多利益

16、,而这就会造成现 在很多 的分配不公。当然 ,分配不公是要从法制机制的整体去解决的。我 觉得在劳 动法的 范畴内,最重要的就是让所有者拿所有者的待遇 ,经营者拿经营者的待遇, 劳动者拿 劳动者的待遇 ,合理地界定清楚 这三者之间的博弈关系。 主编寄语本案涉 及的是双 重身份的 问题,在现有法制环境下,劳动者的概念如此 宽泛,以至用人 单 位内上至老 总下至工人,都是法律意 义上的劳动者。 从劳动者的角度出 发,虽然现 有的法制环 境不甚理想 ,但就劳动者个体而言 ,劳动法和劳动合同法对于 劳动者的广 义界 定反而可以被利用来切 实护自身的 权利。从本案中不难看出,法律 不但不禁止 劳动 者在同

17、一 单位内身兼多 职,还主张做什么性 质的工作就 应当获得与 之相应的报酬,如 果你身兼双 职却只拿一份工 资,就完全可以通 过司法途径主 张 自 己的另一份 报酬,因 为无论做的是什么工作 ,你都是 劳动者,劳动法赋予劳动者同 工同酬 ,按劳分配的 权 利。 从用人单位的角度而言 ,有时候让某些员工身兼多职可 能是业务需要,但有时 某些员工（尤其是管理人 员身兼多职是为了一己私利 ,从用 人单位经济实体追求利 益最大化的本 质看来,有时不宜让经营 人员和普通 员工的身 份重叠在同一 劳动者身 上。在劳动合同法对雇主、雇员都予以保 护的情况下 , 企业的权力机构,如股东大 会、职工大会等更多的

18、 应该运用公司法、镇城集 体所有制企 业条例等法律来限 制企业经营人员以公谋私,从而来 维护企业自身的 合法利益。Case 1 What Is A Laborer?Ms. Jin was a salesman of a company who shared in the company profits andalso a contractor of the company who earned a commission of the company sales. The legal question in this case is how to deal withthe dual identi

19、ties of Ms. Jin. The lawyer in support of the company claims shewas primarily a clerk who shares in the company profits while the lawyer in favor of Ms Jin insists that it is the dual identities as salesman andcontractor that allow her to enjoy both company profits and salescommission. Case Playback

20、 Ms. Jin was a clerk of a boiler company in Shanghai. According to the company practices, Ms. Jin and the company signed a labor contract once a year for her position as financial principal. Later, the company transformed its management system to a contractual system. Optimistic about the future of

21、this system, Ms. Jin joined with another employee of the company and signed a Contract Agreement. The agreement stipulated that in addition to managing the company, setting relevant sales policies and overseeing the managementsystem, the contractor shall then deduct a percentage of profits according

22、ly from the profit margins achieved in the contract year. Specifically, Ms. Jin was allowed to earn 60% of the profit as long asshe achieved the profit minimum of RMB 100,000. Meanwhile, Ms. Jinsofficial position was changed from financial principal to assistantgeneral manager and salesman for a mon

23、thly wage of RMB 1,000. After becoming a contractor with the Company, acting now as the manager in charge, Ms. Jin modified the companys Rules of Operation and Management without permission of other shareholders. The modified rule stated that as long as Ms. Jin achieved a sales minimum of RMB 500,00

24、0 inthe same year, she was allowed to take a commission from the sales. Two years later, Ms. Jin submitted her resignation citing a variety of reasons and demanded the company pay sales commissions and profit sharestotaling almost RMB 470,000. The company refused, thus provoking adispute between the

25、 two parties. Ms. Jin argued that the Contract Agreement specified the standards of profit sharing, while the Rules of Operation and Management specified the sales commission standards.Furthermore, during the contract period, Ms. Jin achieved the necessarysales quotas. Ms. Jin asserted that the comp

26、any should pay her nearly RMB 470,000. The company believed that the relationship between Ms. Jin and the company was a contractual relationship, not a labor relationship. The company contended that it was only responsible for upholding the “ Contract Agreement,” not the Rules of Operation and Manag

27、ement”. The “Rules of Operation and Management only applied to the companys sales staff. Moreover, the Rules of Operation and Managemen”t was an internal management document revised by Ms. Jin herself acting as a representativeof the company with management status. Even if the modifications werelega

28、l and effective, the document was only applicable to clerks employed by Ms. Jin, not to herself. Therefore, the company only agreed to pay the profits of the contract totaling RMB 40,000 in accordance with theContract Agreement.” What was the relationship between Ms. Jin and the company? Was it a co

29、ntractual relationship or an employment relationship? Were the unauthorized profit sharing regulations made by Ms. Jin, as a manager, valid? Legal Background The term “ laborer t”akes on varied, yet specific meanings across different fields. In the realm of labor law, the term “ labore”r refers to a

30、n employed worker as opposed toemployers. There is a long-standing controversy in China over whether corporate administrators and managers who enjoy the rights of employers should be classified as laborers. Referring to foreign legislation, the definition of “ labore”r is strictly limited; administr

31、ators, managersor partners in command are not covered by labor law protections. However, the current legal definition of “ labore”r in China is very broad;general managers, company directors and ordinary workers are all considered to be laborersprotected by the Labor Law. A lack of understanding at

32、the legislative level about the concept of “ employeris” the fundamental reason why the definition of “ labore”r in Chinaslegal system is overly broad. Employers are those who manage laborers on behalf of their work units or companies. In the past, when thestate-owned system dominated the national e

33、conomy, the only “ manag”er was the state, and the economy did not need an “ employe”r concept. In todays diversifying economic system, the division between people who manage and people who are being managed is becoming increasingly evident. It is necessary to reconsider the legal status of those em

34、ployees who also have management rights. Defining the difference between the “ employe”r and the “ ordinary worker” has been controversialthroughout legislation process of the Labor Contract Law, but clear definitions did not materialize ultimately. The Labor Contract Law doesnot make a conceptual d

35、istinction between “ employe”r and “ labore”r.This is significant because while the international community has a wealth of experience, Chinas legislation still continue to use the concept that all staff in a unit can be regarded as ordinary laborers. Lawyer Debate Unauthorized changes made to the R

36、ules of Operation andManagement should be deemed invalid. Lawyer Tang Jiahuai from ShanghaiZheng Da Law Firm in support of the company I believe that the company should pay Ms. Jin profit shares based on the contract, but does not owe her sales commission. First, both contractual and employmentrelat

37、ionships existed between Ms. Jin and the company. The Contract Agreement” represents the real intention between the two parties and does not violate any mandatory provisions of the law. It is legal andeffective.But the contractual relationship was merely a method to distribute payment within the lab

38、or relationship. This distributionmethod was clearly agreed by both parties as per the Contract Agreement ”.Therefore, the existence of a labor relationship between Ms. Jin andthe company is unquestionable. Second, the Rules of Operation and Management has two characters: one is the profit sharing s

39、ystem, and the other is enterprises internal regulations and performance evaluation system. A companys profit sharing rules should first be established bythe board, and then shareholders should be allowed to hold a meeting to approve the rules. In this case, changes to the profit sharing rules were

40、not approved by the board, nor were they agreed upon by shareholdersmeeting. Ms. Jin, as an assistant general manager, went outside her authority when she made such changes and her modifications of the “ Ruleosf Operation and Management” are, therefore, invalid. Third, concerningthe content, I think

41、 the two documents are in conflict. The Rules of Operation and Management” is a kind of revision to the Contract Agreement.” It is necessary to determine whether the revision was legal and effective. The Contract Agreement” and the revised “ Rulesof Operation and Managemen”t are agreements as to the

42、 rights andobligations of both Ms. Jin and the company. The difference is that Ms. Jin unilaterally revised the “ Rulesof Operation and Management”without the companys permission or subsequent ratification. Because the “ Rules of Operation and Managemen”t is an invalid document, only the provisions

43、of the “ Contract Agreement” are applicable. The “ Contract Agreement” should remain valid because it has been observed for two years without being declared annulled. Lawyer Zheng Tiansheng from Shanghai Leiman Law Firm in support of laborers First, there was a labor relationship between Ms. Jin and

44、 the company. On one hand, although Ms. Jin formally signed a “ Contract Agreement” with the company, she wasnot able to achieve a level of Operating Ones Self, IndependentAccounting and Self-Financing which is the legal premise for undertaking the Contractual Management Responsibility. Statutorily,

45、 a contractualrelationship, as defined by the law, does not exist between the two parties. The “ Contract Agreement” was at most a Profit Goal Work Objective between the company and Ms. Jin. As long as she achieved the “ targe”t she was awarded 60% of the profits as an “ incentive”. On the other han

46、d, Ms. Jins job title was assistant general manager andsalesman and she continued to earn a salary of RMB 1,000 per month. Shewas still ranked as the senior staff of the company who is working hardto achieve the profit targets issued by management. Second, the “ Rulesof Operation and Management” rev

47、ised by Ms. Jin should remain valid. According to the “ Contract Agreement.” the company and shareholdersauthorized Ms. Jin to formulate sales policies and relevant management rules that include revising the “ Rulesof Operation and Management”. Also, although Ms. Jin revised the “ Rules of Operation

48、 and Managemen”t without other shareholders permission, the fact is that the revised“ Rules of Operation and Managemen”t had been implemented for two yearsin the company. During those two years, the company shareholders and the leadership surely knew of the existence of the revised “ Rulesof Operati

49、on and Management”. Up to the point of Ms. Jins resignation, the “ Rules of Operation and Managemen”t was not abolished by either the shareholders meeting or the board in the form of a resolution. Moreover, during the two years, other salesmen earned sales commissions inaccordance with the revised “

50、Rulesof Operation and Management”. The company shareholders and the leadership had full knowledge of the revisions. Basedon the facts above, we can fully determine that shareholders of the company had de facto ratified the “ Rules ofOperation and Management”. The revised rules also should apply to M

51、s. Jin, as both a senior manager and a salesman of the company. Final Judgment The Court found that in the latest two years, Ms. Jin was not only one of the defendants contractors, but also the defendants salesman, according to the “ Rules of Operation and Management”. The sales targets set by the d

52、efendant for the plaintiff in 2002 and 2003 were both RMB 500,000. The plaintiff achieved the sales targets so she deserved the reward. It is reasonable for the plaintiff to request relevant earningsaccording to the revised management approach. Therefore, the Court ruled that the company must pay Ms

53、. Jin the relevant earnings of RMB 470,000.Expert Evaluation Rationally define the relationship between owners, operators and laborers. -Professor Dong Baohua from East ChinaUniversity of Political Science and Law Based on the judgment of this case, the laborer was completely successful and the clai

54、ms are all supported. I think the judgment of the Court is correct. In Chinas current legal environment, the concept of “ labore”r is very broad. The general manager, the chairman of board and ordinary workers are all “ laborers d”efined by the current Labor Law. Once the laborrelationship is establ

55、ished, the laborer should receive relevant payment according to the terms of the labor relationship. Within the existing legal framework, the judgment is correct, because the judge is notallowed to rule beyond the existing law. However, I think the existing legal environment is not ideal. If we keep

56、 moving forward according to this legal environment, it is easy for the leaders of our companies to only claim the feat for the surplus, while avoid the responsibility for the deficit. He can earn a bonus for a well-done job but avoid responsibility for failures. When the roles of a manager and a la

57、borerare both held by one person, it is very likely that problems will arise.I think a more ideal legal environment will be one where the owners,managers and laborers roles are adequately defined. For example, in most European and American countries, managers are excluded from the scope of laborers;

58、 managers are not subject to labor laws. During the drafting process of the Labor Contract Law, we had an opportunity to excludemanagers from the scope of laborers, because the relationship between managers and owners is an appointment relationship, not a labor relationship. As the same, after accep

59、ting the appointment, the managersact as representatives of the owner to form labor relationships with laborers. In this light, managers actually belong to the category of employers. Unfortunately, the legislators did not ultimately make suchrevisions. As for this case, I personally think that these two actionsare contradictory. From the salesman perspective, Ms. Jin had a majority of the profits, violating the original in