I was cheated by Qingdao Sanli Group for twenty thousand deposit, and Zhang Xuelian, who resigned from the personnel department, fudged and signed the statement of giving up the deposit. Later, I saw some employees go to court because this statement lost. If you resign, you won't be paid and you won't settle the deposit of 21 thousand.

On-the-job is to deduct 21% of salary and pay it to you in 2115. Thanks for leaving. It is said that there are still many college students who have been cheated.

why don't you search by yourself? Qingdao Sanli? Civil judgment. Look at the court's judgment and you will know the actual situation. Although Qingdao Sanli can exploit legal loopholes, a liar is a liar. Rogues have culture, as long as they know more about rogue companies and stay away from rogue companies.

Xu Pengfei and Qingdao Sanli Group Co., Ltd. Civil Judgment of the Second Instance of Labor Disputes

Qingdao Intermediate People's Court of Shandong Province

(2118) Lu 12 Min Zhong No.7764

Appellant (plaintiff in the original trial): Xu Pengfei, female, born on March 22nd, 1992, Han nationality, living in Muping District, Yantai City.

agent ad litem: sui Xiaoyan, lawyer of Shandong juncheng Renhe (Qingdao) law firm.

agent ad litem: Liu Yanhong, intern lawyer of Shandong juncheng Renhe (Qingdao) law firm.

Appellant (defendant in the original trial): Qingdao Sanli Group Co., Ltd., whose domicile is at the north of No.2 East of Qingda Industrial Park, Chengyang District, Qingdao.

legal representative: Zhang Qinghua, board chairman.

agent ad litem: Gao tiantian, female, is a staff member of Qingdao Sanli group co., ltd.

Appellee (defendant in the original trial): Qingdao Sanli Morris Hotel Co., Ltd., whose domicile is Qingda Industrial Park, Chengyang District, Qingdao.

legal representative: Wang yuzhen, board chairman.

agent ad litem: Gao tiantian, female, is a staff member of Qingdao Sanli group co., ltd.

Appellee (defendant in the original trial): Qingdao Sanli Zhongdemei Water Equipment Co., Ltd., located at the north of Gongye Road, No.2 Jihongtan Street, Chengyang District, Qingdao.

legal representative: Cui jihong, board chairman.

agent ad litem: Gao tiantian, female, is a staff member of Qingdao Sanli group co., ltd.

Appellant Xu Pengfei and Appellant Qingdao Sanli Group Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Sanli Group) appealed to our court against the civil judgment of Qingdao Chengyang District People's Court (2117) Lu 1214 Minchu 1323 for the labor dispute case with the appellees Qingdao Sanli Moris Hotel Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Moris Hotel) and Qingdao Sanli Zhongdemei Water Equipment Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Zhongdemei Company). After the case was put on file in our hospital, a collegiate bench was formed to hear the case according to law. Appellant Xu Pengfei's entrusted litigation agents Sui Xiaoyan and Liu Yanhong, appellee Cui Jihong, the legal representative of Sino-German-American Company, and appellant Sanli Group, appellee Morris Hotel and Sino-German-American Company's entrusted litigation agent Gao Tiantian attended the lawsuit. The case has now been closed.

Xu Pengfei's appeal: annul the judgment of first instance, and change the judgment to support all the claims of Xu Pengfei's first instance according to law; First, the second trial costs shall be borne by Sanli Group. Facts and reasons: First, the court of first instance found Xu Pengfei's average salary for 12 months before she left her job wrong. The focus of the determination of Xu Pengfei's average salary for 12 months before her resignation is the pre-bonus. The court of first instance elaborated on the authenticity, nature and whether to pay the pre-bonus, and finally concluded that the pre-bonus was not a part of the total salary and did not meet the payment conditions specified in the pre-bonus certificate, which was wrong and seriously inconsistent with the facts. Xu Pengfei believes that employees have the right to receive wages and bonuses, and bonuses are an integral part of employees' wages. In the process of setting the salary structure of employees, Sanli Group took advantage of its dominant position and deliberately set the "overlord clause" to present the bonus that should be paid every month in the form of pre-bonus, deliberately deducting the bonus of workers and infringing on their legitimate rights and interests. However, the court of first instance did not find out the facts of the case, and it was wrong to determine that the pre-reward money was not part of the labor salary just because the employee signed the pre-reward certificate. In the first trial, Xu Pengfei claimed that Sanli Group did not pay the salary of RMB 19,389 from 2113 to 2116, which should be the so-called pre-bonus, which was part of the salary, and Sanli Group should pay it to Xu Pengfei in full. However, the court of first instance only decided that Sanli Group should pay Xu Pengfei a bonus of 6,786.15 yuan, which did not comply with the law. Because the court of first instance wrongly identified Xu Pengfei's total wages, it also led to an error in asking Sanli Group to pay the economic compensation for the illegal termination of the labor contract in the first instance. The economic compensation claimed by Xu Pengfei was 23,597 yuan [3,371 yuan× 7 months], and the court of first instance only identified 19,833.31 yuan [2,833.33 yuan× 7 months]. Two, the court of first instance of Xu Pengfei employees paid annual leave wages, the application of legal errors. According to Article 4 (6) and Article 11 (1) of the Provisions on the Composition of Total Wages and Article 2 and Article 5 (3) of the Regulations on Paid Annual Leave for Employees, employees of enterprises who have worked continuously for more than 1 years are entitled to paid annual leave. During the annual leave, employees enjoy the same salary as during the normal working period. For the number of days of annual leave that employees should take, the employer shall pay the annual leave salary according to 311% of the daily salary of the employees. During the seven years from 2119 to 2116, Xu Pengfei should take a vacation, but Sanli Group didn't arrange a vacation, and demanded to pay 311% of Xu Pengfei's daily salary for annual vacation, which is in nature to safeguard employees' right to rest and vacation. According to the national administrative regulations, the annual leave salary is a kind of salary paid by the employer under special circumstances to fulfill the national or social obligations, which constitutes an integral part of the total wages of workers. Xu Pengfei's request should be supported. However, the court of first instance claims that the paid annual leave salary is only a welfare treatment enjoyed according to law and should be bound by the limitation of arbitration, which is a mistake in applying the law. In the first instance, Xu Pengfei claimed that the paid annual leave salary was 11849 yuan [3371 yuan ÷21.75×7(2119-2116 )× 5 days× 211%], but the court of first instance only ordered Sanli Group to pay Xu Pengfei 521.17 yuan [2833.33 yuan ÷ 21.75× 2× 211]. 3. It is wrong for the court of first instance to conclude that Sanli Group's prepayment for dining in Xu Pengfei is not a labor dispute. The fact is that Sanli Group promised to eat, wear and live free of charge when recruiting. Morris Hotel and Sanli Group are affiliated enterprises, and Xu Pengfei was arranged by Sanli Group to dine at Morris Hotel, which was not Xu Pengfei's independent choice, but one of the working conditions promised by Sanli Group. Therefore, the relationship between Xu Pengfei and Morris Hotel is not a catering service contract, and the court of first instance is wrong in defining the dispute between the two parties. Therefore, the agreement between Morris Hotel and Xu Pengfei that the meal expenses of employees who leave their jobs midway shall be borne by individuals is not binding on Xu Pengfei, and Xu Pengfei should not bear the obligation to pay the meal expenses. Xu Pengfei asked Morris Hotel to return the advance payment for dining, which was in line with the law. The court of first instance refused to deal with it on the grounds that it was not a labor dispute, which was an error of applicable law. Four, the court of first instance found that the charitable fund paid by Xu Pengfei did not belong to the scope of labor dispute settlement, and it was wrong. The fact is that Sanli Group used its dominant position to directly deduct Xu Pengfei's salary in the name of paying charitable funds, regardless of whether Xu Pengfei agreed or not, and Xu Pengfei did not pay it voluntarily. Moreover, after the charity fund was paid, Sanli Group didn't publicize the management and use of the fund to Xu Pengfei, and Xu Pengfei didn't know where the so-called "charity fund" was embezzled. Therefore, the "charity fund" paid by Xu Pengfei is the behavior of Sanli Group to deduct Xu Pengfei's salary, which is a labor dispute. We should support Xu Pengfei's request for Sanli Group to pay 1842.1 yuan for the charity fund from 2115 to 2116. To sum up, the judgment of the first instance was wrong, and the request was changed according to law.

Sanli Group argues that: 1. The judgment of the court of first instance exceeds the claim, which violates the principle of not suing and ignoring, and is an error of applicable law. 1. Xu Pengfei didn't ask Sanli Group to pay the pre-bonus in the lawsuit, while Xu Pengfei asked for "the defendant to pay the unpaid salary of the plaintiff from 2113 to 2116 of RMB 19,389", but the first item of the first-instance judgment "ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff the pre-bonus of RMB 6,786.15" exceeded Xu Pengfei's lawsuit. 2. The court of first instance did not comprehensively review the nature of the "pre-bonus", the objects to be rewarded and the conditions for paying achievements in the trial. According to the contents stated in the Statement on the back of the pre-award certificate, the pre-award is a credit guarantee incentive measure and the embodiment of the enterprise's independent management right, which should be protected by law. When Xu Pengfei worked in Sanli Group, she seriously violated the factory rules and regulations of Sanli Group, and was absent from work without any handover, so this award is invalid. On the one hand, the court of first instance found that the pre-reward was not salary, on the other hand, it applied the principle of fault to give a certain pre-reward to employees who left their jobs halfway, which was wrong. Two, Sanli Group has arranged for Xu Pengfei to take paid annual leave, and should not pay Xu Pengfei paid annual leave salary. 3. Prepayment for dining does not belong to the scope of accepting labor dispute cases and should not be handled in this case. 1. Xu Pengfei signed the "Notice of Internal Management System of Qingdao Sanli Group" when he was in office. It was clearly stipulated in the notice that the employer must provide free meals for employees because the law does not stipulate that the company does not provide free meals for employees, but the company can bear the dining expenses at Morris Hotel for employees who have fully fulfilled the labor contract period as a reward for their faithful performance of the labor contract. If the term of the labor contract is not fulfilled for any reason, it will not bear the meal expenses at Morris Hotel during the working period, and it will not bear any responsibility for the meal expenses dispute with Morris Hotel. 2. Xu Pengfei signed a "dining contract" when he joined the company, and personally wrote an "application for dining first", and paid 21,111 yuan to Morris Hotel in advance. All expenses incurred were settled by Xu Pengfei and Morris Hotel, which had nothing to do with Sanli Group. And article 2 of the dining contract clearly stipulates that when the contract is terminated, it shall be settled according to the facts, and the overpayment shall be made and the underpayment shall be made. Four, Sanli Group has never forced Xu Pengfei to pay charitable funds, nor has it been deducted from his salary, which does not belong to the scope of accepting labor dispute cases and should not be handled in this case. V. The reason for Xu Pengfei's resignation is not that Sanli Group failed to pay social insurance, but that it was due to his own absenteeism, so Sanli Group should not pay Xu Pengfei economic compensation. Xu Pengfei was absent from work for no reason without any handover. Sanli Group repeatedly urged him to come back to work or hand over his work, but Xu Pengfei ignored him. Because of his serious violation of factory rules and regulations, he was dealt with according to the system to legally terminate the labor contract relationship with Xu Pengfei, and a notice was posted, and he was informed by telephone. Therefore, Sanli Group should not pay Xu Pengfei economic compensation. To sum up, the first-instance judgment found that the facts were unclear and the applicable law was wrong, and requested to support Sanli Group's claim.

The defense opinions of Morris Hotel and Sino-German-American Company are the same as those of Sanli Group.

appeal request of Sanli group: the first-instance judgment was revoked, and all the claims of Xu Pengfei were rejected. First, the second trial costs shall be borne by Xu Pengfei. Facts and reasons: First, the judgment of first instance exceeds Xu Pengfei's claim, which violates the principle of not suing and ignoring, and is an error of applicable law. 1. Xu Pengfei didn't ask Sanli Group to pay the pre-bonus in the lawsuit. Xu Pengfei asked for "the defendant paid the plaintiff's unpaid salary of RMB 19,389 from 2113 to 2116", but a trial order "the defendant paid the plaintiff's pre-bonus of RMB 6,786.15" exceeded Xu Pengfei's lawsuit. Sanli Group did not owe Xu Pengfei the salary, and the court of first instance also decided that the pre-bonus was not the salary, but a conditional extra bonus besides the salary, so the court of first instance exceeded Xu Pengfei's claim and should cancel it. 2. The court of first instance did not comprehensively review the nature of the "pre-bonus", the object of the bonus and the conditions for paying the achievement. It was clearly stated in the Statement on the back of the pre-bonus voucher that the pre-bonus is an additional bonus for employees with conditions. Article 2) of the statement stated that this bonus is an additional bonus for the company to encourage employees to honor contracts, agreements and commitments, and to pay attention to the salary, monthly salary and reputation of employees. This reward is only valid for employees with good reputation. Article 6) states: The reward will be null and void no matter what the circumstances and reasons (for failing to sign the labor contract or pay the endowment insurance, etc.) as long as the rewarded person leaves the job halfway. Article 5) states: If the rewarded person is dealt with according to law in violation of national laws and regulations, or is dismissed, suspended, dismissed or removed from the company in violation of factory rules and regulations, this award will be invalid. And in the positive "effective conditions of pre-reward", it is clearly stated: "The pre-reward can only be effective if the rewarded person meets the following conditions, otherwise it will be invalid: 1) The pre-reward will be effective if he has signed a labor contract for 21 years or more and has worked continuously for more than 21 years, and the pre-reward expires for 21 years. If a labor contract of 21 years or more is signed and the employee has worked continuously for more than 21 years, and the pre-reward is less than 21 years but reaches the legal retirement age (if there is a retirement age agreed by both parties, the time agreed by both parties shall prevail), the pre-reward is still valid. 2) If a labor contract has not been signed or the term of signing the labor contract is less than 21 years, and there is no substantive and effective credit commitment or credit guarantee commitment to the company, the pre-reward will be effective only when it reaches the legal retirement age and has worked in the company for more than 25 years continuously, and the resignation in the middle will be invalid. 3) If the pre-reward is less than 21 years after the expiration of the labor contract, the pre-reward is invalid. 4) If the pre-reward has expired for 21 years and the labor contract has not expired, the pre-reward is invalid. " It can be seen that the nature of the pre-bonus is a kind of credit guarantee incentive measure, and it is an original business incentive mechanism for enterprises to attract and tie up talents in combination with the confidentiality of their own high-tech patented products. It conforms to the legal framework requirements for enterprises to operate independently and formulate their own operating systems, is not prohibited by Chinese laws and regulations, and deserves social advocacy and national legal protection. When Xu Pengfei worked in Sanli Group, she seriously violated the factory rules and regulations of Sanli Group, and was absent from work without any handover, so this award is invalid. On the one hand, the court of first instance decided that the pre-reward money was not salary, on the other hand, it applied the fault principle to give certain pre-reward money to employees who left their jobs halfway, and gave certain pre-reward money according to the proportion of employees' working years. The application of legal errors also interfered with the legal management system of independent operation and self-development of enterprises and affected the development of enterprises. Second, the reason for Xu Pengfei's resignation is not that Sanli Group failed to pay social insurance to him, but that he was absent from work for no reason, so he should not pay Xu Pengfei economic compensation. 1. The court of first instance found that the reason for Xu Pengfei's resignation was that the unit failed to pay social insurance, which was inconsistent with the facts. After Xu Pengfei joined the company, the company asked him to pay social insurance many times, and leaders at all levels talked with Xu Pengfei many times to persuade him to pay social insurance, which can be confirmed by his competent leaders and several witnesses. However, Xu Pengfei delayed the application for various reasons, so that the part paid by individuals who did not pay social insurance could get cash. Xu Pengfei was absent from work for no reason without any handover. Sanli Group repeatedly urged him to come back to work or hand over his work, but Xu Pengfei ignored him. Because of his serious violation of factory rules and regulations, Sanli Group should not pay Xu Pengfei economic compensation. 2, Xu Pengfei submitted to the court of first instance "terminate/terminate the labor contract.