（来源：荔枝新闻） 转自：荔枝新闻 #员工被扣1000元工资充值公司当福利#【#1000元工资充值内部系统公司被判赔#】近日，湖北省武汉市 蔡甸区人民法院审理了一起劳动争议案。某公司向员工李某发放月工资时，将7000元通过银行转账，另 外1000元却充值到公司内部消费系统。员工李某多次提出异议，公司坚称这是"福利"。李某果断解除劳 动合同并申请劳动仲裁。法院审理后认为，根据《中华人民共和国劳动法》第五十条及《工资支付暂行 规定》第五条规定，工资应当以货币形式按月支付给劳动者本人，不得以实物及有价证券替代货币支 付。该公司向内部系统充值的行为实质限制了劳动者对工资的自主支配权，即使公司事后补发1000元， 因补发行为发生在劳动关系解除之后，不影响其在解除时已构成未足额支付劳动报酬的事实。最终法院 判决公司向李某支付经济补偿金。@陕视新闻 ...

安联基金澄清与涉案方无合作 原告张某以"不当得利纠纷"为由起诉安联基金，同时被起诉的还有菲尔莱（北京）科技有限公司（以下简称菲尔莱），案件暂定于1月13 日在上海开庭。 | 上海市浦东新区人 民法院 | 临港新城第 2026-01-13 六法庭 | 15:00:00 | (2025) 沪0115民 初145417号 | 不当得利纠纷 | 南汇新城 人民法庭 | | | 安联基金管理有限公 司,菲尔莱（北京）科 技有限公司 | 开庭 | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | 法院 | 法庭 | 开庭日期 | 案号 | 案由 | 承办部门 | 审判长/主审 | 原告/上诉人 | 被告/被上诉人 | 开庭类型 | 21世纪经济报道记者杨娜娜 上海报道 2026新年首月，安联基金、国投瑞银、华宝基金和联博基金等多家公募基金，被推向法院被告席。 上海市高级人民法院公告显示，针对这几家机构的起诉案由横跨金融委托理财合同纠纷、不当得利及劳动争议等多种类型。其中，不仅涉 及明星基金经理，还有外资新锐公募被牵连。 安联基金是由安联投资全资 ...

龙某于2018年9月10日入职该公司，双方签订了期限至2020年9月9日的劳动合同，期满后未再续签书面 合同，龙某于2024年7月26日离职。双方就离职原因、劳动关系性质及经济补偿等问题产生争议。 龙某向乌鲁木齐市天山区人民法院提起诉讼，请求确认2021年9月10日后双方存在无固定期限劳动合 同，确认该公司解除劳动关系违法，并要求支付违法解除劳动合同赔偿金89293.92元等相关事项。该公 司也提起诉讼，请求法院判令其无须支付经济补偿金等费用。 （来源：工人日报） 本报讯 （记者吴铎思 通讯员肖君）近日，新疆维吾尔自治区乌鲁木齐市中级人民法院就一起劳动争议 上诉案作出终审判决。二审法院经审理，部分支持劳动者龙某的上诉请求，认定乌鲁木齐某公司应支付 其解除劳动关系经济补偿金共计44646.96元，并对一审判决的其他事项予以维持或调整。 龙某与公司均提起上诉。龙某主张系公司违法解除，并提交了微信、钉钉聊天记录作为证据。公司则主 张龙某系自行离职。法院认为，龙某提交的聊天记录不足以证明公司违法解除，该公司也未能提供充分 证据证明是龙某主动提出的辞职。二审法院认定，应视为由用人单位提出，经协商一致解除劳动关系。 根据 ...

联博基金成立于2021年9月，由美国资管巨头联博集团旗下联博香港有限公司100%控股，为外资独资公 募基金公司，于2024年1月获准展业。据公开信息，联博集团为全球大型公募基金公司，管理规模超过 8000亿美元。 同花顺（300033）数据显示，至今年三季度末，联博基金旗下共有3只产品，管理规模为5.55亿元，较 今年二季度减少50.03%、较去年同期增长45.4%。公司在今年第二季度新成立了2只产品，规模较一季 度末大增近8.75倍；进入第四季度后，公司又有一只产品成立，最新管理规模提升至9.84亿元。 此前曾出现公募高管起诉公司的案例。例如，瑞达基金原首席信息官刘冬、弘毅远方基金原总经理李湧 等均曾与前公司对簿公堂。2023年，益民基金原人力资源部总经理起诉公司，争议类型为"违法解除"， 成为金融业"限薪令"背景下首个高额赔偿判例。 【深圳商报讯】(记者詹钰叶)根据上海市高级人民法院官网近期披露的信息，外资公募联博基金前副总 经理朱建荣起诉"老东家"一案将于2026年1月19日开庭审理，案由是"劳动争议"。他在今年9月因"个人 原因"离职，任职15个月。 上海市高级人民法院官网信息显示，2026年1月19 ...

Group 1 - The article discusses the impact of AI on labor relations, highlighting a case where a technology company terminated an employee's contract due to the introduction of AI automation, which was deemed an unlawful dismissal by the arbitration committee [1] - The arbitration committee clarified that changes in labor contracts must be unforeseen and beyond the company's regular operational decisions, indicating that the introduction of AI does not meet these criteria [1] - The article emphasizes the need for companies to bear the risks associated with technological advancements rather than transferring them to employees [1] Group 2 - Another case focuses on the implementation of gradual retirement policies, where a hotel unilaterally terminated an employee's contract without proper consultation, violating the new retirement age regulations [2] - The arbitration committee ruled that the employee's retirement age should be adjusted according to the new policy, thus invalidating the hotel's basis for contract termination [2] - The publication of these cases aims to enhance legal guidance, protect workers' rights, and promote healthy development of market entities while reducing labor disputes [2]

Core Viewpoint - Cambricon has disclosed a labor dispute lawsuit involving a former executive, which is currently accepted by the Haidian District People's Court in Beijing and has not yet been heard [1][3]. Group 1: Lawsuit Details - The plaintiff, Liang Jun, a former vice president of the company, left in early 2022 and is seeking three main requests: confirmation of an employment relationship from October 18, 2017, to February 10, 2022; compensation for stock incentive losses amounting to RMB 4,286,624,448, based on 11,523,184 shares held indirectly, calculated at the highest stock price of RMB 372 as of October 10, 2024; and the company to bear the litigation costs [3]. - Cambricon responded that Liang did not directly hold shares before leaving and that his stock incentive rights were subject to a buyback clause in the "Shareholding Plan B," which he refused to cooperate with after leaving during the restriction period [3][4]. Group 2: Previous Legal Actions - Liang has previously filed two lawsuits regarding the partnership agreement related to the shareholding platform, both of which were dismissed by the court or arbitration institutions, with the rulings now effective [4]. - The arbitration ruling confirmed that Liang was aware of and agreed to the terms of the "Shareholding Plan" when signing it, thus he is bound by its provisions [4]. Group 3: Company Response and Impact - Cambricon has engaged a legal team to analyze Liang's claims comprehensively and will actively respond to the lawsuit to protect the company's and investors' legal rights [4]. - The company believes that this lawsuit will not affect its daily research and operations, and since the case has not yet been heard, it expects no impact on current profits, with future profit effects depending on the final court ruling [4].

Core Viewpoint - The article highlights the ongoing challenges and complexities surrounding social insurance (社保) for employees in small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in China, particularly in light of new legal interpretations that enforce stricter compliance with social insurance contributions [3][12][44]. Group 1: Employee Experiences - Employee Li Shan, who has been working for a small company, has repeatedly requested social insurance but has faced resistance from her employer, who offered a salary increase instead of fulfilling the promise to provide social insurance [2][3]. - Many employees in small companies, like Li Shan, are unaware of their rights regarding social insurance and often prioritize immediate cash over future benefits, leading to a culture of opting out of social insurance [41][42]. - The lack of social insurance is a common issue among young workers, with many companies failing to comply with legal requirements, leaving employees vulnerable [4][11]. Group 2: Legal Context and Implications - The Supreme People's Court's new interpretation of labor dispute laws prohibits employers from evading social insurance payments, allowing employees to terminate contracts and seek compensation if their rights are violated [3][12]. - This legal change is expected to increase the number of labor disputes related to social insurance, as employees become more aware of their rights and the legal avenues available to them [12][13]. - The new regulations may lead to significant financial implications for employers, particularly SMEs, as they will need to adjust their payroll practices to comply with the law [13][20]. Group 3: Employer Challenges - Employers, especially in sectors like e-commerce and small restaurants, face significant financial pressure from the requirement to fully fund social insurance for their employees, which can double their labor costs [18][22]. - Many employers express concerns that the increased costs associated with social insurance could lead them to reduce their workforce or shift to more flexible employment arrangements, such as hiring part-time workers [22][24]. - The article notes that a significant portion of SMEs are not compliant with social insurance regulations, with only 28.4% of companies paying the full amount based on employees' average monthly wages [44][46]. Group 4: Industry Trends - The restaurant industry, particularly small establishments, is particularly vulnerable to the financial impacts of mandatory social insurance, as their profit margins are already thin [33][35]. - The article suggests that if strict enforcement of social insurance payments continues, it could lead to a restructuring of the labor market, with many small businesses unable to sustain operations under the new financial burdens [35][36]. - The trend towards flexible employment and the use of temporary workers is likely to increase as businesses seek to mitigate the financial impact of mandatory social insurance contributions [22][24].

Core Viewpoint - The recent judicial interpretation regarding social insurance regulations is perceived as a signal for "mandatory social insurance," which raises compliance requirements for small and micro enterprises while increasing operational pressure [2][5][9]. Summary by Sections 1. Judicial Interpretation and Its Implications - The judicial interpretation emphasizes that agreements between employers and employees to waive social insurance contributions are invalid, reinforcing the obligation of employers to pay social insurance [2][3]. - This interpretation is seen as a continuation of existing practices rather than a new regulation, as similar provisions have been in place since the Labor Contract Law was enacted in 2008 [3][4]. 2. Impact on Small and Micro Enterprises - Small and micro enterprises may face increased operational costs due to mandatory social insurance contributions, which could lead to financial strain [5][11]. - The interpretation may lead to a rise in labor disputes, as employees gain more leverage to demand compliance from employers [8][10]. 3. Labor Market Dynamics - The interpretation reflects a growing trend of labor disputes, with the number of cases rising significantly, indicating a need for clearer legal guidelines [13][14]. - The judicial interpretation aims to address the imbalance in employer-employee relationships, where employees often lack bargaining power [16][17]. 4. Flexibility in Employment and Social Insurance - The interpretation raises questions about how it aligns with the trend of flexible employment, where workers may prefer cash payments over social insurance contributions [18][19]. - There is a need for adaptable social insurance models that cater to the unique circumstances of flexible workers, ensuring their rights are protected without discouraging employment [19][20]. 5. Future Considerations - The implementation of the interpretation may necessitate increased awareness and education regarding social insurance among flexible workers to enhance their participation [20]. - The integration of social insurance contributions into credit evaluation systems starting in 2025 may further influence employer behavior regarding compliance [20].

Core Viewpoint - The Supreme People's Court has issued a judicial interpretation that invalidates agreements between employers and employees to not pay social insurance, reinforcing the legal obligation for employers to provide social insurance benefits to workers [1][3][4]. Group 1: Legal Implications - The new interpretation states that any agreement or promise by an employee to waive social insurance contributions is deemed invalid, and employees can request contract termination and economic compensation if their employer fails to pay social insurance [1][5]. - The interpretation aims to unify legal standards in response to the rising number of labor disputes related to social insurance, competition restrictions, and employee benefits [3][4]. - The interpretation emphasizes that enjoying social insurance benefits is a fundamental right for workers, contributing to social stability and protecting workers from income loss during risks [4][11]. Group 2: Industry Impact - The restaurant and service industries are increasingly relying on part-time workers to avoid the costs associated with full-time employees, including social insurance contributions [2][10]. - The new regulations may pressure employers, particularly small and micro-enterprises, to comply with social insurance laws, potentially leading to adjustments in employment practices [11][12]. - The current social insurance system is perceived as rigid, with compliance challenges for many businesses, especially in light of economic pressures and the need for flexible employment arrangements [12][13]. Group 3: Economic Considerations - The average monthly salary in Beijing is reported at 11,761 yuan, with the minimum social insurance contribution base set at 6,821 yuan for 2024 [9]. - Employers are required to contribute approximately 1,800 yuan monthly for social insurance for each employee, which can deter them from hiring full-time staff [10]. - A significant portion of enterprises (28.4%) reportedly comply fully with social insurance regulations, indicating ongoing challenges in achieving compliance across the industry [12].

Core Viewpoint - The Supreme People's Court has introduced a new interpretation that invalidates agreements between employers and employees to not pay social insurance, aiming to ensure compliance with social insurance laws and prevent disputes [1][2][4]. Group 1: Legal Framework - Current labor and social insurance laws mandate that both employers and employees must participate in social insurance, with the Labor Contract Law allowing employees to terminate contracts if employers fail to pay social insurance [2][3]. - The new interpretation consolidates existing judicial practices, clarifying that agreements to not pay social insurance are illegal and should be deemed invalid by courts [2][4]. Group 2: Judicial Practice - Prior to this interpretation, there were conflicting judicial opinions on whether employees could claim economic compensation after agreeing to not pay social insurance [3][4]. - The new interpretation aligns with the judicial stance taken by Beijing courts, which supports employees' rights to claim compensation when employers fail to pay social insurance [4]. Group 3: Implications for Employers - The introduction of this rule is expected to compel employers to comply with social insurance obligations, thereby promoting lawful employment practices and protecting employee rights [4][5]. - Employers often avoid paying social insurance to reduce labor costs, which can create an uneven playing field against compliant businesses [5][6]. Group 4: Social Impact - The interpretation has garnered significant public attention, indicating that the practice of not paying social insurance is prevalent among some employers [4][5]. - Experts suggest that balancing employee rights and employer operational viability may require adjustments in social insurance rates and management practices [6].