Executives Do Not Work Attendance But Are Detained For Absences.

Mr. Shaw, senior manager of Guangxi long term Automobile Investment Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the long term investment company), after leaving office, asked the unit for the April 2015 salary and the annual leave pay for April 2015.

The company did not have Mr. Xiao in April 2015.

It is refused to ask for an annual leave pay exceeding the time limit.

After the arbitration, the court's first instance and the second instance, the case ended with the result of the three lawsuit of a long-term investment company.

Because the company failed to provide Mr. Xiao's effective evidence for several months' attendance, he was sentenced by the court to pay 22000 yuan for his salary in April 2015 and 18207 yuan for his annual leave.

Mr. Shaw, more than 30, entered the 1 month long term investment company in 2012 and resigned in May 2015.

During his stay, Mr. Shaw served as a senior sales manager, leaving 22000 yuan a month before leaving.

Mr. Xiao applied for labor arbitration after leaving office, requiring the company to pay 22000 yuan in April 2015 and 18207 yuan in annual leave during work.

The arbitration agency decided to support Mr. Xiao's request, but the company refused to be prosecuted to the Chaoyang District court of Beijing.

In the trial, the company said that in March 27, 2015, Mr. Xiao did not go to work until he had gone through any formalities.

After many contacts, Mr. Xiao handled his resignation in May 17, 2015.

Because Mr. Xiao did not attend his duty in April, he should not pay wages.

In addition, the company employee manual provides that the annual leave should be used in the current year, otherwise unified clearing will be regarded as the voluntary abandonment of employees.

In January 1, 2014, Mr. Xiao only established labor relations with the company, so he can enjoy the year from January 1, 2015.

。

In addition, the annual leave applied by Mr. Xiao is also more than the time limit.

For these reasons, the company is not required to pay for Mr. Xiao's request.

Mr. Xiao replied that he was on duty until April 30, 2015, and that it was only due in May 17th.

Because the company paid wages 15 days a month, he found that he did not pay his salary in April, and he resigned and applied for labor arbitration.

The controversy in this case is whether the long term investment company should pay Mr. Xiao's April 2015 salary and his unpaid annual leave.

In the trial, the company said Mr. Xiao was absent from work in April 2015 and submitted the attendance record of that month.

The company emphasized that if Mr. Shaw could not prove the contents of his work, the clients he had seen, and the signed documents, he should confirm that he did not work.

Mr. Xiao did not approve of the company.

He believes that his post is a senior sales manager. He does not need to punch cards or work attendance at work.

If the company takes out the past attendance record, he also has no attendance record.

In answering the judge's questions, the company said that Mr. Xiao's argument was true, because he did not need attendance, so he could make an annual leave schedule during the normal working hours.

If he doesn't take his annual leave, he is not responsible for the company.

The long term investment company also indicated that the time limit for arbitration should be applied to the arbitration statute stipulated in the twenty-seventh and first paragraphs of the labor dispute mediation and arbitration law. Mr. Xiao, on the 29 day of June 2015, referred to the Arbitration Commission for labor arbitration. Therefore, the annual leave before June 29, 2014 has exceeded the limitation of arbitration.

The company is not required to pay the wages and annual leave paid by Mr. Xiao.

The court held that, in the event of a labor dispute, the parties concerned 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.

Where the employer fails to provide, it shall bear adverse consequences.

In this case, the long-term investment company only provided the attendance record for Mr. Xiao's attendance in April 2015, and Mr. Xiao did not recognize it. He also said he did not record attendance. The company failed to provide Mr. Xiao's attendance comparison during other periods. Therefore, the court of first instance held that the evidence provided by the company was not sufficient to prove its claim for attendance.

The court held that, as a unit of employment, the company did not give evidence of Mr. Xiao's annual leave, nor did he prove that he had paid the annual leave for Mr. Xiao, so he should pay the annual leave for Mr. Xiao.

Accordingly, the judgement company paid Mr. Xiao April 2015 salary of 22000 yuan, and did not take the annual leave pay 18207 yuan.

After the decision, the long-term investment company refused to accept the appeal to the third Central Hospital of Beijing.

After the appeal, the company did not submit new evidence.

After the trial of the third court, the court made a judgement recently, dismissed the appeal and upheld the original judgment.