Group 1 - The core viewpoint of the article emphasizes the invalidity of agreements between employers and employees to not pay social insurance fees, reinforcing that such agreements do not hold legal weight and employees can terminate contracts and seek compensation [3][4][6] - The Supreme People's Court's interpretation clarifies that any agreement or promise by an employer or employee to not pay social insurance fees is invalid, and courts will support employees in seeking economic compensation for non-payment [4][6][10] - The article highlights a trend of increasing labor disputes related to welfare benefits, non-compete clauses, and social insurance, indicating a growing need for legal clarity in these areas [1][4] Group 2 - The article discusses a case where an employee, who voluntarily chose not to sign a written labor contract, was denied the right to claim double wages, as the employer was not liable due to the employee's intentional non-compliance [5][6] - It is noted that the interpretation specifies that if an employee intentionally or negligently fails to sign a written labor contract, the employer is not obligated to pay double wages [6][8] - The article also addresses non-compete agreements, stating that such agreements must align with the employee's knowledge of the employer's trade secrets and intellectual property, and any excessive restrictions are deemed invalid [7][8] Group 3 - The article outlines that in cases of subcontracting in the construction industry, the primary contractor remains responsible for paying work-related injury insurance, even if there is no direct labor relationship with the injured worker [9][10] - It emphasizes that the responsibility for labor remuneration and work injury insurance lies with the contractor, regardless of whether the subcontractor has the legal qualifications to operate [10] - The interpretation aims to address common issues in subcontracting practices, ensuring that workers receive timely compensation and protecting their legal rights [10]

Group 1 - The Supreme People's Court has issued judicial interpretations to address rising labor dispute cases, particularly focusing on social insurance, non-compete agreements, and labor contracts, effective September 1 [1][2] - The interpretations clarify that any agreement to not pay social insurance is invalid, reinforcing the obligation of employers and employees to participate in social insurance [1][2] - Employers are required to pay economic compensation to employees who terminate contracts due to non-payment of social insurance, calculated as one month's salary for each year of service [1][2] Group 2 - Non-compete agreements must be reasonable and cannot be applied indiscriminately; they are only valid for employees who have access to confidential information [3][4] - The interpretations specify that non-compete clauses are invalid if the employee has not been exposed to confidential information, promoting fair employment practices [4] - Employers must ensure that the scope, region, and duration of non-compete agreements are appropriate to the confidential information the employee has access to [4] Group 3 - The judicial interpretations clarify that employers are not liable to pay double wages if the employee intentionally fails to sign a labor contract [6][7] - Specific conditions under which double wage liability does not apply include situations caused by force majeure or employee negligence [6][7] - The calculation of double wages is defined as monthly, with provisions for partial months based on actual working days [7] Group 4 - The interpretations establish clear criteria for recognizing consecutive fixed-term labor contracts, ensuring employees' rights to request indefinite contracts after two consecutive terms [8] - Employers cannot deny the existence of two contracts to evade obligations, which protects employees' long-term job security [8] Group 5 - The interpretations address issues of subcontracting and mixed employment, holding contractors and associated parties responsible for labor rights violations [10] - In cases of mixed employment without written contracts, related companies are jointly liable for wage payments and other responsibilities [10] - Employees are advised to retain evidence of payment and work assignments to support their claims in case of rights violations [11]

Group 1 - The Supreme People's Court has clarified the legal standards for labor disputes, including non-compete agreements and social insurance issues, effective from September 1 [1] - Non-compete clauses are invalid if the employee is unaware of the employer's trade secrets or related confidential matters, and the scope of such clauses must align with the employee's knowledge of these secrets [2] - Agreements between employers and employees to not pay social insurance are invalid, as social insurance is a fundamental right for employees and a legal obligation for employers [3] Group 2 - Employers are not liable to pay double wages if a written labor contract is not established due to force majeure or employee negligence, and specific conditions for continuous fixed-term contracts are clarified [5][6] - Contractors and subcontractors are responsible for labor remuneration and work-related injury insurance if they transfer their business to unqualified entities [7] - Courts will support employees in confirming labor relationships based on management behavior and other factors when no formal contract exists with the employing entity [8]

Core Viewpoint - The Supreme Court's new interpretation aims to regulate the abuse of non-compete agreements and ensure that employers fulfill their obligations regarding social insurance, addressing rising labor disputes and promoting harmonious labor relations [1][2][3]. Non-Compete Agreements - The new interpretation restricts the generalization and abuse of non-compete agreements, stating that such clauses are invalid if the employee is unaware of the employer's trade secrets or related confidentiality matters [2][3]. - Non-compete clauses must align with the employee's knowledge and exposure to the employer's confidential information, and any excessive restrictions are deemed invalid [2][3]. Social Insurance Obligations - Employers are mandated to pay social insurance, and any agreements to waive this obligation are considered invalid, even if the employee requests it [5][6]. - If an employee terminates their contract due to the employer's failure to pay social insurance, the employer is liable for economic compensation [5][6]. Labor Relations and Responsibilities - The interpretation clarifies that contractors and associated entities must bear responsibility for labor relations, ensuring that employees receive their wages and social insurance benefits [6][7]. - In cases of mixed employment, courts will support employees in confirming their labor relationships based on management practices and other relevant factors [7].

新华社北京8月1日电（记者 罗沙）最高人民法院1日发布《最高人民法院关于审理劳动争议案件适 用法律问题的解释（二）》，进一步回应司法实践需求，依法保护当事人合法权益，维护劳动关系和谐 稳定。 为促进人才有序流动，司法解释规定，在劳动者未知悉、接触用人单位商业秘密和与知识产权相关 的保密事项的情况下，即使用人单位与劳动者约定了竞业限制条款，竞业限制条款也不生效，对劳动者 没有拘束力。在劳动者属于竞业限制人员范围的情况下，竞业限制条款约定的竞业限制范围、地域、期 限等内容应与劳动者知悉、接触的商业秘密和与知识产权相关的保密事项相适应，超过部分无效。 同时，人民法院坚持依法衡平劳动者、用人单位双方利益。司法解释规定，用人单位根据双方约定 向劳动者提供特殊待遇后，劳动者未按约定提供一定期限的劳动，给用人单位造成损失的，人民法院可 以根据实际损失、当事人的过错程度、相关约定已经履行的时间等因素确定劳动者应当承担的赔偿责 任。 最高法当天还发布了6个劳动争议典型案例，具体体现此次司法解释确立的相关规则，推动各方更 好理解适用。据悉，最高法将通过继续发布典型案例、不断完善人民法院案例库等方式加强审判指导， 统一裁判标准，为 ...

今天（8月1日），最高人民法院召开新闻发布会，发布《最高人民法院关于审理劳动争议案件适用法律 问题的解释（二）》，针对社会广泛关注的热点争议问题，统一法律适用标准，切实维护劳动者合法权 益。解释自9月1日起施行。 竞业限制协议是市场中常见的保护商业秘密等保密事项的合同。负有保密义务的劳动者在职期间及离职 后一定期限内，不得自营或者到与原单位有竞争关系的单位任职。但有些公司不管劳动者是否接触商业 秘密等保密事项，无差别地签订竞业限制协议，约定高额违约金，严重限制了劳动者的择业权。司法解 释针对这一问题作出明确规范，为竞业限制划出合法边界。 最高人民法院民一庭副庭长吴景丽介绍，竞业限制是指劳动者在单位工作期间，掌握了单位的商业秘 密，就不能在职期间或者离职之后从事与单位的商业秘密有关的具有竞争关系的这种活动；如果从事 了，那就应该承担相应的违约责任。竞业制度这样限制的目的主要就是为了防止恶性竞争，保护企业的 竞争优势。 为了防止商业秘密的泄露和不正当竞争，司法解释规定：用人单位依法与竞业限制人员约定的在职竞业 限制条款合法有效，劳动者违反竞业限制约定时，应依法承担违约责任。 最高人民法院民一庭副庭长 吴景丽：劳动 ...

竞业限制协议是市场中常见的保护商业秘密等保密事项的合同。负有保密义务的劳动者在职期间及离职 后一定期限内，不得自营或者到与原单位有竞争关系的单位任职。但有些公司不管劳动者是否接触商业 秘密等保密事项，无差别地签订竞业限制协议，约定高额违约金，严重限制了劳动者的择业权。司法解 释针对这一问题作出明确规范，为竞业限制划出合法边界。 今天（8月1日），最高人民法院召开新闻发布会，发布《最高人民法院关于审理劳动争议案件适用法律 问题的解释（二）》，针对社会广泛关注的热点争议问题，统一法律适用标准，切实维护劳动者合法权 益。解释自9月1日起施行。 最高人民法院民一庭副庭长 吴景丽：劳动者是一个公司的销售经理，掌握着公司的客户资源。把客户 资源卖给了另外一个有竞争关系的供货商，导致供货商向公司客户出卖商品，这就相当于损害了本公司 的利益，也就违反了竞业限制，就应该承担相应的违约责任。 同时，为遏制竞业限制协议"滥用"，保障人才有序流动，此次司法解释明确了竞业限制条款不生效或无 效的情形。司法解释规定：劳动者未知悉、接触保密事项，竞业限制条款不生效。这意味着，不属于竞 业限制范围的劳动者，即使订立竞业限制协议，此约定对劳动 ...

在遭电池巨头宁德时代起诉后，储能新贵海辰储能与宁德时代之间的纠纷再度升级。近日多家媒体报 道，海辰储能总裁办主任、工程部负责人冯登科因涉嫌侵犯商业秘密，已被福建宁德市警方依法采取强 制措施。据报道此事系宁德时代主动报案，宁德时代已收集完整证据交由公安机关，有接近宁德时代人 士向南都湾财社记者证实此事属实，记者也就此事致电海辰储能，相关负责人回应称对此事尚不了解。 成立5年成行业第三 涉嫌侵犯商业秘密一事发生于几年前 据知情人士透露，宁德时代并非于近期报案，冯登科涉嫌侵犯商业秘密一事发生于几年前，近期被采取 强制措施或为警方调查已有进展，相关案件还在调查当中。 天眼查信息显示，冯登科目前担任海辰储能持股90%的海辰绿能（上海）能源开发有限公司法定代表 人。有接近宁德时代人士表示，冯登科与海辰储能董事长吴祖钰原来都是宁德时代的员工，吴祖钰彼时 为冯登科的上级。 公开信息显示，海辰储能2019年创办，专注于提供以储能电池和系统为核心、覆盖全场景储能解决方案 的全球领先新能源科技公司，是全球锂离子储能电池出货量GWh级别以上中，唯一专注储能领域的企 业。 然而，这样的高管背景似乎并未为海辰储能带来与宁德时代之间的良好 ...

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the legal framework surrounding non-compete agreements in labor contracts, emphasizing the conditions under which they can be applied and the economic compensation involved for employees who are subject to such agreements [4][11][14]. Group 1: Non-Compete Agreements - Employers and employees can agree to maintain confidentiality regarding the employer's trade secrets and intellectual property in the labor contract [3]. - Non-compete clauses can be included in labor contracts or confidentiality agreements, with provisions for economic compensation during the non-compete period after contract termination [4][16]. - Non-compete agreements are applicable only to senior management, senior technical personnel, and other employees with confidentiality obligations [8][9]. Group 2: Duration and Compensation - The non-compete period cannot exceed two years after the termination of the labor contract [11]. - If the economic compensation is not explicitly stated, the employee may request compensation based on 30% of their average monthly salary from the last twelve months, provided it meets or exceeds the local minimum wage [14]. - If the employer fails to pay the agreed economic compensation for three months after contract termination, the employee can request to terminate the non-compete agreement [16].

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the increasing abuse of non-compete agreements in China, particularly affecting lower-level employees, and highlights the imbalance of power between employers and employees in these legal disputes [3][5][29]. Group 1: Non-Compete Agreement Abuse - Non-compete agreements are being misused, with a significant rise in related cases over the past five years, particularly in industries like internet, new energy, and pharmaceuticals [8][9]. - The majority of individuals affected by non-compete agreements are lower-level employees, with 77% of cases involving workers such as security guards and cleaners [3][9]. - High-level executives often escape the consequences of non-compete agreements due to their connections and the willingness of new companies to cover their legal fees [10][11]. Group 2: Legal and Financial Implications - The financial burden of non-compete agreements has escalated, with penalties now often calculated as multiples of annual salary rather than based on compensation provided by the employer [11][12]. - There is no legal cap on the penalties for breaching non-compete agreements, leading to exorbitant claims, with some cases reaching up to ten times the annual salary [12][31]. - The legal system currently favors employers, as they can initiate lawsuits with minimal costs, while employees face significant financial and emotional stress [21][30]. Group 3: Surveillance and Evidence Collection - Companies often employ private investigators to monitor former employees, leading to invasive surveillance practices [14][15]. - Evidence collected through surveillance, even if obtained illegally, can still be used in court if it demonstrates that an employee joined a competing firm [16][30]. - The psychological impact on employees being monitored is profound, with many resorting to extreme measures to avoid detection [14][15]. Group 4: Legal Representation and Advocacy - There is a growing movement among lawyers to represent employees in non-compete cases, emphasizing the need for legal support for the vulnerable workforce [5][29]. - The legal community is increasingly aware of the ethical implications of representing companies in these disputes, with some lawyers choosing to focus solely on employee advocacy [27][28]. - The article calls for reforms to protect employees from the excessive penalties associated with non-compete agreements, advocating for a balance between protecting business interests and employee rights [29][31].