公司召开全员会议，解读包含工资调整内容的绩效管理办法，职工全程未提异议，能否视为认可薪资结 构变更？ 近日，北京市第一中级人民法院对一起劳动争议案作出终审判决，明确用人单位单方变更薪资结构须有 合法依据并进行民主协商，职工未提异议不能作为降薪理由，判令公司向职工支付工资差额等总计 865523.93元。 （来源：工人日报） 对此，廉某明确表示，其从未同意公司变更薪资结构。公司所谓的全员会议仅是对绩效管理办法的解读 和公示，并未与职工就工资调整进行民主协商，也未取得其个人同意。 法院认为，公司主张廉某存在渎职行为、考核不合格，但未提交充分证据予以证明，扣发工资也未提供 对应的制度依据；公司未与廉某续签书面劳动合同，且无证据证明系廉某自身原因导致，应支付二倍工 资差额；因公司存在未及时足额支付劳动报酬的情形，廉某据此解除劳动合同，公司应支付经济补偿 金。2025年，石景山区人民法院做出一审判决，判令公司支付廉某工资差额等，驳回公司的全部诉讼请 求。 该公司不服，向北京市第一中级人民法院提起上诉。二审维持原判。 北京市总工会劳模法律服务团成员、北京谦君律师事务所律师武丽君在接受记者采访时表示，劳动合同 法明确规定， ...

Core Viewpoint - Recent court cases in Jiangsu and Beijing highlight the legal distinctions between legitimate employee restroom use and excessive absenteeism, impacting company policies on employee conduct [1] Group 1: Case Summaries - In Jiangsu, an employee named Liu was dismissed after spending excessive time in the restroom, with 11 instances of prolonged absence within a month, the longest being 6 hours and 21 minutes, which the court deemed as exceeding reasonable biological needs and classified as de facto absenteeism, thus validating the company's termination [1] - In contrast, in Beijing, an employee named Li experienced sudden abdominal pain and took a 3-minute restroom break while notifying a colleague to cover for him, which the court ruled as a normal biological occurrence, leading to a judgment against the company for unlawful termination, requiring compensation of over 60,000 yuan [1] Group 2: Legal Insights - Legal experts emphasize the importance of distinguishing between "reasonable needs" and "work evasion," focusing on the employee's intent (whether to avoid work) and the reasonableness of their behavior (duration and frequency of restroom use) in relation to job responsibilities [1] - Companies must exercise their rights regarding employee management within the boundaries of legality and reasonableness, ensuring that policies are compliant with labor laws [1]

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the legal implications of employees being dismissed for leaving their posts to use the restroom, highlighting the need for a balance between "reasonable physiological needs" and workplace discipline [2] Group 1: Legal Context - Recent court cases have addressed disputes where employees were terminated for leaving their posts to use the restroom or take short breaks [2] - The article raises questions about the boundaries between legitimate breaks and misconduct, emphasizing the need for a nuanced understanding of employee rights and employer authority [2] Group 2: Employer and Employee Responsibilities - Employers must exercise their rights within reasonable and legal boundaries when it comes to employee conduct [2] - Employees are expected to fulfill their duties diligently while also having their basic physiological needs respected [2]

Core Viewpoint - The case highlights the legal implications of internship agreements, emphasizing that such agreements may be recognized as labor contracts if they meet the criteria outlined in labor laws, thus protecting workers' rights [1][4][5]. Group 1: Case Background - A graduate student, referred to as Xiao Guo, entered into an internship agreement with an education company in February 2018, which was supposed to last until June 2020, but he continued working until March 2022 without a formal labor contract [2][3]. - Xiao Guo claimed that the company failed to pay social insurance and adequate wages, leading him to seek arbitration for compensation related to exceeding the legal probation period and other claims [2][3]. Group 2: Court Proceedings - The initial arbitration request was denied, prompting Xiao Guo to file a lawsuit in the local court, where he argued that the company delayed signing a formal labor contract despite his repeated requests [2][3]. - The court ruled in favor of Xiao Guo regarding compensation for exceeding the legal probation period, unpaid wages due to the lack of a written contract, and compensation for unused annual leave [3][5]. Group 3: Legal Interpretation - The court determined that the internship agreement effectively constituted a labor contract due to its comprehensive terms, including work responsibilities and compensation, which align with labor contract requirements [4][5]. - The judge noted that the nature of the agreement and the actual working conditions indicated a labor relationship rather than a mere internship, thus validating Xiao Guo's claims [4][5]. Group 4: Industry Implications - The case underscores the need for vigilance among workers regarding the potential misuse of internship agreements by employers to obscure actual employment relationships and deny workers their legal rights [5][6]. - Experts suggest that educational institutions should play a more active role in ensuring that internship agreements are properly structured to protect students' rights and clarify the nature of the work relationship [6].

Core Viewpoint - A company in Wuhan was ordered to compensate an employee after unlawfully deducting 1000 yuan from their salary and crediting it to an internal consumption system, which the court deemed a violation of labor laws [1] Group 1: Legal Context - The court ruled that wages must be paid in monetary form directly to the employee, as stipulated by the Labor Law of the People's Republic of China and the Interim Provisions on Wage Payment [1] - The company's action of crediting 1000 yuan to an internal system effectively restricted the employee's right to freely manage their wages [1] Group 2: Employee Actions - The employee, after multiple objections to the company's actions, chose to terminate the labor contract and sought arbitration [1] - The court found that the company's subsequent reimbursement of the 1000 yuan did not alter the fact that the employee had not received full payment at the time of contract termination [1] Group 3: Court Decision - The court ultimately ordered the company to pay economic compensation to the employee due to the unlawful wage deduction [1]

Group 1 - Multiple public funds, including Allianz Fund, Guotai Junan UBS, Huabao Fund, and Legg Mason Fund, have been taken to court in January 2026 for various disputes, including financial trust management contract disputes, unjust enrichment, and labor disputes [1] - Allianz Fund, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Allianz Investment, was established in September 2023 and manages approximately 1 billion yuan, ranking 149th among 164 licensed public fund institutions [3][5] - The case against Allianz Fund involves a claim of unjust enrichment by a plaintiff named Zhang, with a court date set for January 13, 2026 [2][3] Group 2 - Guotai Junan UBS and its well-known fund manager Shi Cheng are facing dual lawsuits for financial trust management contract disputes, which is a rare occurrence in the public fund industry [8] - The core dispute involves the Guotai Junan UBS Jinbao Flexible Allocation Mixed Fund, which has shown a total return of 103.1% under Shi Cheng's management, ranking in the top 14% among similar funds [9][10] - Despite past successes, the fund experienced significant drawdowns, with a peak decline of over 71% in August 2024, leading to poor performance rankings in subsequent years [10][12] Group 3 - Huabao Fund and Legg Mason Fund are also involved in labor disputes, with Huabao Fund facing a lawsuit from former fund manager Chen Long due to labor-related issues [16][18] - Chen Long managed two funds that performed poorly during his tenure, with losses of 54.8% and 46.75%, while the funds saw significant recovery after his departure [18][19] - Legg Mason Fund's former vice president Zhu Jianrong is also in a labor dispute with the company, highlighting ongoing internal conflicts within public funds [19][20] Group 4 - Allianz Fund has clarified that it has no business relationship with the accused party, Feilai (Beijing) Technology Co., and has reported fraudulent activities involving impersonation of its staff [5][7] - The company has warned investors to be cautious of scams and has reported incidents of losses due to fraudulent activities [5][7] - The legal issues faced by these funds may impact investor confidence and the overall reputation of the public fund industry in China [1][8]

Core Viewpoint - The Urumqi Intermediate People's Court ruled in favor of the employee, determining that the company must pay economic compensation for the termination of the labor relationship, amounting to 44,646.96 yuan, while maintaining or adjusting other aspects of the first-instance judgment [1][2] Group 1: Case Background - The employee, Long, joined the company on September 10, 2018, with a labor contract that expired on September 9, 2020, and did not renew the written contract after expiration [1] - Long left the company on July 26, 2024, leading to disputes regarding the reason for departure, nature of the labor relationship, and economic compensation [1] Group 2: Legal Proceedings - Long filed a lawsuit requesting confirmation of an indefinite labor contract after September 10, 2021, and claimed that the company's termination was unlawful, seeking compensation of 89,293.92 yuan [1] - The company countered with a lawsuit to avoid paying economic compensation [1] Group 3: Court Rulings - The first-instance court ordered the company to pay Long 37,680 yuan for economic compensation, 2,887.35 yuan for unused annual leave, and 1,100.95 yuan for preservation application fees, while rejecting Long's other claims and the company's request to avoid compensation [1] - In the second-instance ruling, the court found that the evidence provided by Long was insufficient to prove unlawful termination, and the company failed to demonstrate that Long voluntarily resigned [2] Group 4: Legal Principles Established - The second-instance court clarified the burden of proof regarding the reasons for termination in labor disputes, stating that if neither party can sufficiently prove the reason for termination, it can be considered as a mutual agreement to terminate the labor relationship [2] - The ruling emphasized that economic compensation should be calculated based on the employee's average pre-tax salary for the twelve months prior to departure [2]

Group 1 - The former deputy general manager of Lianbo Fund, Zhu Jianrong, is suing the company for "labor dispute," with the court hearing scheduled for January 19, 2026 [1] - Zhu Jianrong left Lianbo Fund in September 2023 after 15 months of service, citing "personal reasons" for his departure [1] - Lianbo Fund, established in September 2021, is a wholly foreign-owned public fund company under the management of Lianbo Group, which oversees over $800 billion in assets [1] Group 2 - As of the end of Q3 2023, Lianbo Fund has three products with a management scale of 555 million yuan, a decrease of 50.03% from Q2 2023, but an increase of 45.4% year-on-year [2] - The company launched two new products in Q2 2023, resulting in an increase of nearly 875% in scale compared to the end of Q1 2023, and added another product in Q4 2023, raising the latest management scale to 984 million yuan [2] - Previous cases of public fund executives suing their companies include instances involving Rui Da Fund and Hongyi Yuanfang Fund, highlighting a trend in the industry [2]

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].