Case Background:During Cai's work at a cinema technical service company, there were a certain number of overtime hours on rest days that were not arranged or paid in a timely manner. The company refused to pay Cai overtime pay on the grounds that it was stipulated in the human resources management manual. However, in the end, the arbitration result upheld Cai's request, pointing out that the company's rules and regulations were in conflict with national laws.
Legal Principles:According to Article 44, Paragraph 2 of the Labor Law of the People's Republic of China, if overtime work on rest days is not arranged in a timely manner, the employer shall pay wages and remuneration not less than 200% of the salary. In addition, Article 26, Paragraph 1, Item 2 of the Labor Contract Law of the People's Republic of China stipulates that an employer shall not exempt itself from statutory liabilities or exclude the rights of employees.
Case Analysis:Although the company's human resources management manual informs employees of the overtime and vacation system, it is still invalid when this provision conflicts with national laws. Therefore, it is illegal for the company to refuse to pay overtime.
Tips:
Employees are entitled to overtime pay, and the company shall not deprive employees of their legitimate rights and interests through internal regulations.
The company's rules and regulations should be in line with national laws, otherwise it may lead to legal liabilities and labor disputes.
Employees should be aware of their rights and seek legal assistance or fight for their rights in the event that the company's regulations conflict with the law.
Conclusion:Cai's case tells us that the obligation to pay overtime pay is not exempted due to the provisions of the unit system. When labor rights and interests are infringed, they should protect their legitimate rights and interests in a timely manner