簡體中文  |  English   |  Fran?ais  |  ???  |  日本語

公眾號
公眾號
客戶端
客戶端

大連 · 沈陽 · 上海 · 東京

搜索

郵箱登陸 友情鏈接 法律聲明

頁面版權:恒信律師事務所 中企動力 提供技術支持   遼ICP備06009171號-1

>
>
【中英文】追索未休年假報酬是否適用一般仲裁時效?

大連   總機:86-411-82825959
          電子信箱:mail@hxlawyer.com
沈陽   總機:86-24-22517958
     電子信箱:mail@hxlawyer.com
上海   總機:86-21-63903699
          電子信箱:shanghai@hxlawyer.com

恒信資訊

【中英文】追索未休年假報酬是否適用一般仲裁時效?

分類:
恒信資訊
瀏覽量

No.1

【裁判要旨】

《中華人民共和國勞動爭議調解仲裁法》第二十七條規定:“勞動爭議申請仲裁的時效期間為一年。仲裁時效期間從當事人知道或者應當知道其權利被侵害之日起計算?!瓌趧雨P系存續期間因拖欠勞動報酬發生爭議的,勞動者申請仲裁不受本條第一款規定的仲裁時效期間的限制;……”因未休年假工資報酬中的另外兩倍報酬并非勞動者提供正常勞動應得的報酬,應屬于福利待遇,因此追索未休年假報酬的主張應適用一年的仲裁時效。

 

No.2

案情摘要及裁判結果

2009年8月21日,劉某入職甲公司,任主管。雙方陸續簽訂三份書面勞動合同,合同期限至2018年10月9日。2017年11月13日,甲公司單方提出解除勞動合同,并與劉某協商達成一致,雙方解除勞動合同關系。

2018年10月25日,劉某向大連市勞動爭議仲裁委員會提起勞動仲裁,主張甲公司支付2010年至2017年未休年假報酬。仲裁委以不屬于勞動人事爭議受理范圍為由決定不予受理,劉某因不服仲裁裁決訴至法院。

一審法院判令:甲公司支付2017年未休年假報酬,駁回劉某的其他訴訟請求。劉某不服一審判決提起上訴,二審法院判令維持原判,駁回上訴。

 

No.3

【恒信解讀】

1、支付未休年假報酬的相關法律規定。《職工帶薪年休假條例》第五條第三款規定:“單位確因工作需要不能安排職工休年休假的,經職工本人同意,可以不安排職工休年休假。對職工應休未休的年休假天數,單位應當按照該職工日工資收入的300%支付年休假工資報酬”,《企業職工帶薪年休假實施辦法》第十條規定:“用人單位經職工同意不安排年休假或者安排職工年休假天數少于應休年休假天數,應當在本年度對職工應休未休年休假天數,按照其日工資收入的300%支付未休年休假工資報酬,其中包含用人單位支付職工正常工作期間的工資收入”。依據前述規定,針對員工未休年假報酬,因用人單位已經支付員工正常工作期間的日工資收入,單位再另行額外支付員工日工資收入的200%的報酬即可。根據《企業職工帶薪年休假實施辦法》第十一條的規定,未休年假報酬的日工資收入的計算公式為:本人月工資/21.75天。本人月工資是指職工在用人單位支付其未休年休假工資前12個月剔除加班工資后的月平均工資。在本用人單位工作時間不滿12個月的,按實際月份計算月平均工資。

2、追索未休年假報酬適用一般仲裁時效。根據《勞動爭議調解仲裁法》第二十七條規定,仲裁時效可分為一般仲裁時效和特殊仲裁時效。一般仲裁時效期間為“一年”,特殊仲裁時效為“勞動關系存續期間因拖欠勞動報酬發生爭議的,勞動者申請仲裁不受本條第一款規定的仲裁時效期間的限制(但勞動關系終止的,應自勞動關系終止之日起一年內提出)”。因此,本案的爭議焦點為未休年假報酬是否屬于“工資”。如屬于,則不適用一年的仲裁時效限制,適用特殊時效;否則,將適用一年的仲裁時效制度。關于具體何為“工資”,《關于工資總額組成的規定》第四條規定:“工資總額由下列六個部分組成:(一)計時工資;(二)計件工資;(三)獎金;(四)津貼和補貼;(五)加班加點工資;(六)特殊情況下支付的工資”。根據前述規定,未休年假報酬是否屬于“工資”,司法實踐有不同的理解。近年來,大連地區的司法實務在一定程度上形成共識,認為未休年假工資報酬中的另外兩倍報酬并非勞動者提供正常勞動應得的報酬,應屬于福利待遇,應當適用一年的仲裁時效。具體到本案中,劉某主張2010年至2017年帶薪年休假工資。其中,2016年的未休年假工資最遲應在2017年12月31日申請勞動仲裁,但劉某于2018年10月25日才申請勞動仲裁主張2010年至2017年未休年假工資,所以2010年至2016年的未休年假工資已經超過法定的一年仲裁時效期間,而且劉某也沒有提出仲裁時效中止、中斷的證據,因此,法院僅支持了2017年的未休年假工資。

 

No.4

【案例索引】

一審:(2018)遼0204民初7679號民事判決
二審:(2019)遼02民終6692號民事判決

 

Does the time limitation of arbitration apply to salary of the unused annual vacation?

[Gist of the Verdict]

Article 27 of “the People’s Republic of China Labor Dispute Mediation and Arbitration Law”: the time limitation period for application for arbitration of a labor dispute shall be one year. The time limitation period for arbitration shall be counted as of the date when a party knows or should know that its right has been violated. --- During the existence of the labor relations, a dispute arises over the default in payment of labor remuneration, application for arbitration by the worker concerned shall not be restricted by the limitation period for arbitration prescribed in the first paragraph of this Article.

The twofold salary of unused vacation is not the remuneration that the laborer should have earned for provision of normal labor, but belongs to welfare and shall be governed by one-year limitation of arbitration. 

[Introduction and Verdict]
Mr. Liu joined Company A as the Chief Supervisor on 21st August 2009. Both parties have then executed three labor contracts in writing and the contract term was until 9th Oct. 2015. On 13th Nov. 2017, Company A requested to dissolve the labor contract, and then discussed and agreed with Mr. Liu to dissolve their labor contract. 
On 25th Oct. 2018, Mr. Liu submitted the labor dispute to Dalian Labor Dispute Arbitration Committee, requesting Company A to pay the salary of unused annual  vacation from 2010 to 2017 The Arbitration Committee didn’t accept the dispute by the reason that it didn’t fall into its scope of jurisdiction. Mr. Liu didn’t accept the award and filed a lawsuit with the court. . 
The first instance court issued the verdict that Company A shall pay the salary of unused annual vacation for the year of 2017 and dismissed other claims of Mr. Liu. Mr. Liu appealed and the second instance court affirmed the original verdict and dismissed the appeal.  
[Interpretation of Hengxin Lawyer]
1. Applicable laws and rules with regards to payment of salary for unused annual vacation. In accordance with 5.3 of “If the unit does not arrange for the annual leave of staff due to the needs of the job, it may not arrange for the workers’ annual leave without the consent of the employees themselves. For employees whose annual vacation days should not be taken off, the unit shall pay annual wages and salary in accordance with 300% of the daily wage income of the staff and workers. In accordance with 10 of “Implementation Measures for Paid Annual Leave for Employees of Enterprises”-Article 10: Where an employer does not give annual leave to an employee or gives him days of annual leave less than the days of annual leave due upon the consent of the employee, it shall pay the employee 300% of his daily wage income for each day of the annual leave due and not taken in the year, which includes the wage income to be paid by the employer to the employee per day in normal working days. In accordance with above rules, the employer needs only to pay an additional 200% of the daily wage income to an employee since the employer has already paid the daily wage income during normal working days. In accordance with 11 of “Implementation Measures for Paid Annual Leave for Employees of Enterprises”, the formula for calculating the daily wage income of an employee which is used for calculating the payment for his annual leave time due but not taken shall be dividing the monthly wage income of the employee into the working days (21.75 days). The monthly wage income mentioned in the preceding paragraph refers to the average monthly wage for 12 months, which deducted the overtime pay, before the employer pay to the employees the wage income of the annual leave not taken. If the working days of employees are less than 12 months for their employer, the monthly wage income mentioned in the preceding paragraph refers to the average monthly wage in accordance with the actual working days.   
2. Application of the time limitation of arbitration to the salary of unused annual vacation. In accordance with Article 27 of “the People’s Republic of China Labor Dispute Mediation and Arbitration Law”, the time limitation period for arbitration is divided to general and special time limitations. The general time limitation period for arbitration shall be one year. The special time limitation for arbitration is that “During the existence of the labor relations, a dispute arises over the default in payment of labor remuneration, application for arbitration by the worker concerned shall not be restricted by the limitation period for arbitration prescribed in the first paragraph of this Article. However, where the labor relations are terminated, such application for arbitration shall be submitted within one year from the date the labor relations are terminated. Hence, the focus of dispute in this case is whether the payment for unused annual leave belongs to “salary” or not. If the answer is yes, the one-year time limitation doesn’t apply, but the special time limitation shall apply. Otherwise, it will be subject to one-year time limitation. In accordance with Article 4 of “Rules about Composition of Total Salary”, total salary is made up of six parts: 1. hourly salary, 2. piece salary, 3. bonus,4. subsidy and allowance, 5. overtime salary, 6. salary paid under special conditions. In accordance with above rules, there are different understandings on the salary for whether the payment for unused annual leave belongs to “salary” or not in judicial practice. In recent years, it has reached a consensus in Dalian that the additional twofold payment for the unused annual leave is not the remuneration that an employee shall get from provision of normal labor, but belongs to welfare, and thus is subject to one year time limitation. In this case, Mr. Liu claimed for the salary of annual paid leave from 2010 to 2017. The laborer shall apply for arbitration for the salary of unused annual vacation for the year of 2016 no later than 31st Dec. 2017. However, Mr. Liu delayed the claim for the salary for the annual paid vacation from 2010 to 2017 until 25th Oct. 2018. The claim for the annual paid vacation from 2010 to 2016 has exceeded the statutory time limitation of the arbitration. Moreover, Mr. Liu didn’t present any evidence for suspension or interruption of the time limitation of arbitration. Thus, the court supported only the salary for the unused annual vacation in the year of 2017. 
[Case Index]
First instance: (2018) Liao 0204 MC No. 7679 Civil Verdict 

Second instance: (2019) Liao 02 MZ No. 6692 Civil Verdict 

大神棋牌娱乐官方下载 山西十一选五预测专家 上海麻将吃三口规则 波克安徽麻将外挂 上海麻将下载清混碰 腾讯游戏腾讯棋牌 体育彩票36选7中几个号码 云南11选5基本走势图 彩经网 体彩排列五近15期开奖结果 快乐十分必出规律 白山棋牌手机版 永利电子游戏网址 十一运夺金基本走势图 哈尔滨麻将玩法则 湖人vs凯尔特人总决赛第六场 闪电盒子红包麻将 kk棋牌作弊器免费下载