One-stop legal consulting platformProvide you with professional legal services
Hotline:400-066-9580
+0086-15921168155

Interpretation of the Validity of Provisions in Employment Contracts by Shanghai Corporate Counsel


Casedescription: Zhao is a sales agent for a company. Thecompany signed an employment contract with him in 2008. There wasa clause in the contract which stipulated that Zhao can withdraw 60% of the profits from the sale of products,and that the company is not responsible for his illness, injury,disability or death. During a business trip, Zhao was injured anddisabled as a result of a traffic accident. Zhao and the company hada dispute and filed an arbitration with the Labor Arbitration Commission, demanding a solution to his disability.

Analysis:

Theprinciple of legality to be followed in the conclusion of anemployment contract as stipulated in Article 3 of the Labor Contract Law refers to the fact that the conclusion of an employment contractshall not violate the provisions of laws and regulations. Lawsand regulations include both existing laws and administrativeregulations as well as those promulgated and implemented at a laterdate, which includeboth labor laws and regulations as well as civil, criminal, administrative andeconomic laws and regulations. Theprinciple of legality comprises:the subject of the employment contract must be legal; the content ofthe employment contract must be legal and the procedureand form in which the employment contract is concluded must be legal.

Accordingto Article26 of the Labor Contracts Law,if theemployer exempts itself from its legal responsibilities and excludesthe rights of the workers, the employment contract is invalid or arepartially invalid. The employment contract between Zhao and thecompany provided that the company would not pay for any of Zhaosdisability benefits, which was a clause that exempted the employerfrom its legal responsibilities and was clearly illegal. Therefore,this clause is null and void.

Finally,the arbitration committee accepted the lawyersopinion,and foundthat the clause was invalid and that Zhao was injured at work.It is then ruledthat his company should compensate him based on his work injury entitlement.

Article written by:Zhang Xintian and Zhou Haibo



Related Cases

Contact Us
Telphone : 400-066-9580
+0086-15921168155
Address : No. 2206-2207室,1609 Greenland Hechuang Mansion, No. 450, Caoyang Road, Putuo District, Shanghai
Follow us

Wechat

Copyright ? 2020 上??粕新蓭熓聞?wù)所 . All Rights Reserved. Designed by Wanhu.滬ICP備18019711號(hào)-5

OnlineMessage