The Appellant was not convinced by the verdict of the Yantai District Court concerning the dispute between the two sides over the labor contract and decided to appeal to this court for judgment. This court therefore started its hearing on the case and has now passed its verdict as below. The verdict is final......
22nd October 2007
(abridged version)
(Translator note: Details concerning purely technical issues and repetitive items have not been translated for this version. The main concern here is to translate the court’s conclusion. )
Appellant: Ole Wolff (Yantai) Electronic Co. Ltd.
Agent: Li yulan, manager
Original plaintiff: Six women workers of the aforementioned company
Agent: zhang jun.
The Appellant was not convinced by the verdict of the Yantai District Court concerning the dispute between the two sides over the labor contract and decided to appeal to this court for judgment. This court therefore started its hearing on the case and has now passed its verdict as below. The verdict is final.
The Yantai District Court learnt that the six workers were employed by the Appellant between January and February, 2006, and the Appellant signed a one-year contract with each. On October 13th, 2006, the Six allegedly missed work without permission, and were subsequently dismissed. They then filed complaints to the Arbitration Department.
Prior to October 8th, the Six and their fellow workers had been trying to request the company (permit them) to set up a union. The company produced a work record to the court to show that the Six missed work without permission for 3-4 days. The Six refused to accept the work record as evidence. They defended themselves on the ground that of the 4 days in question, two were holidays and the other two were days when all workers of the company staged a strike (to demand for the founding of union).
On December 18th 2006, the Fushan District Arbitration Committee nullified the company’s decision to fire the Six, and ordered the company to continue to fulfill the labor contract.
(Then the company filed a law suit in the Fushan District Court to overturn the decision.)
The Fushan District Court ruled that the work record provided by the company cannot be accepted as evidence as it was made unilaterally and cannot verify the company’s claim. The Six struck because the company refused to allow them to found a trade union, and their action was legitimate. Therefore they cannot be regarded as missing work without permission. Therefore the company’s dismissal does not have legal grounds and should be rejected. The Fushan District Court passed its verdict on August 20th 2007 which ruled that:
1. The company’s decision to terminate labor contract with the Six should be rejected.
2. The company should pay the Six 520 yuan for the arbitration fee. The Court cost should also be borne by the company.
After this the company did not accept the District Court’s verdict, and appealed to this court.
(Then the verdict goes on to quote the arguments of both sides in length.)
This court regarded that Ö.the Six’ absence from work on October 7th and 8th was because the two days were the company’s holidays; their absence from work on October 12th and 13th was because of strike actions against the company. The four days of absence of work cannot be regarded as missing work without permissionÖ.In summation, the company’s termination of these labor contracts is illegitimate, and therefore should be rejected. The original verdict of the Fushan District Court is correct and must be upheld. This court therefore ruled that:
The appeal is rejected. The original verdict remains effective.
The Appellant should be responsible for the payment of a 50-yuan court cost.
This verdict is final.
The Judge: Wang jichang