The court ruled that in order to force employees to resign, they were required to complete 70 design drawings every day
If they want to fire employees but are unwilling to pay compensation for terminating the labor contract, some companies will find various reasons to force employees to resign voluntarily, or maliciously increase the workload to create the "fact" that employees are disobeying work arrangements.
Recently, the Beijing No. 3 Intermediate People's Court concluded a dispute caused by an employer's malicious increase in workload. The court determined that the employer's behavior constituted an illegal termination of the labor contract and that compensation should be paid to the employees.
The court found that in November 2019, Ms. Shen joined a technology company as a graphic designer. Since then, the two parties failed to negotiate on layoffs and severance compensation. The technology company has gradually increased Ms. Shen's workload since November 2021, and sent a "Notice of Termination of the Labor Contract" to Ms. Shen at the end of the month, saying that because Ms. Shen did not obey the company's management, If you do not complete the work tasks assigned by the company, your labor relationship with Ms. Shen will be terminated.
In this regard, Ms. Shen said that she just refused the unreasonable workload. Previously, the company assigned work tasks for each person to design more than 40 pictures per day, and then gradually increased until each person was required to complete more than 70 pictures per day, which was far more than normal. The amount of work simply cannot be completed.
After investigation by the court, the remarks on the assessment form submitted by a technology company during the arbitration stage showed that the total amount of materials completed in the quarter was more than 2,400 drafts, and the score reached a full score of 5 points. According to this standard, the amount of tasks per person per working day is approximately 40. From November 3, 2021 to before Ms. Shen's resignation, the workload assigned by a technology company gradually increased from 120 sheets for 3 people to 70 to 75 sheets per person per day. In this regard, Ms. Shen and her colleagues repeatedly raised objections to the unreasonable increase in workload. Ms. Shen also applied to reduce her workload, but received no response. In order to complete her work tasks, Ms. Shen applied for overtime three times during this period. On November 29, after receiving the workload for the day, Ms. Shen stated that she could not complete the task during normal working hours and refused the unreasonable workload. On November 30, Ms. Shen was removed from the work group.
During the trial, Ms. Shen’s colleagues testified in court, saying that after the company failed to communicate with employees about layoffs, it significantly increased its workload. After Ms. Shen resigned, the workload returned to normal.
After the trial, the court of first instance held that Ms. Shen refused to work arranged by the technology company and did not provide sufficient evidence that the work arranged by the technology company exceeded her normal workload. Therefore, it is difficult to accept Ms. Shen’s claim that the workload she refused was unreasonable. Ms. Shen’s claim was not supported. Ms. Shen was dissatisfied and appealed.
After the trial, the Beijing No. 3 Intermediate People's Court held that since early November 2021, a technology company has gradually increased Ms. Shen's workload, which has significantly exceeded her workload for full marks in the assessment. It can be seen from the communication that although Ms. Shen initially had objections to the increase in workload, she still worked hard to complete the tasks assigned by the company. On November 22 and November 24, after the workload increased to 60 pieces per day, Ms. Shen extended her working hours for more than two and a half hours to finally complete the design task. The company later approved Ms. Shen’s overtime application. The court held that this It can prove that the company recognizes that Ms. Shen needs to work a lot of overtime to complete the 60 picture design tasks.
Under this situation, the company continued to increase Ms. Shen's workload to more than 70 pieces, which now reached more than 180% of the full score assessment standard for Ms. Shen's workload. Accordingly, after comprehensively considering the facts of the case, the court determined that a technology company had illegally terminated the labor contract and ordered the company to pay Ms. Shen 63,000 yuan in compensation for illegal termination of the labor contract.
Whether you are forced to work overtime can refer to the reasonable limit of workload
"Because the judgment of the workload is somewhat subjective, and the employer has strong control over the arrangement of the workload, even if the workload is increased, it is concealed and rational, and it is often difficult for workers to make judgments about the workload. Quantification and proof have therefore become a means for some employers to 'punish' disobedient workers." The second-instance judge said after the court: "The combination of 'increasing workload and disobeying work arrangements' often makes workers fall into overwork. The dilemma of not finishing, not doing it and breaking the rules.”
The second-instance judge said that the Labor Contract Law stipulates that employers should strictly implement labor quota standards and must not force or force workers in disguise to work overtime. In this case, it can be seen from the communication records and emails that a technology company's assessment of whether Ms. Shen completed her work tasks was mainly based on whether Ms. Shen could complete the number of picture design tasks assigned by the company every day. When judging the labor quota standard, we can comprehensively consider whether the labor quota standard formulated by the employer has gone through democratic procedures, whether there is a clear agreement on the workload between the employer and the worker, the employer's past assessment of the worker's workload, and the worker's completion of work. Whether the quantity requires extended working hours and other factors will be comprehensively judged.
After negotiations to terminate the contract failed, a certain technology company continued to increase the workload of its workers until the workers could no longer complete the work even after working overtime. Based on the relevant evidence, it is sufficient to prove that the above-mentioned behavior of a certain technology company constitutes unreasonable arrangement of work tasks and forcing or forcing workers in disguise to work overtime. Although the employer has the autonomy to assign work tasks to workers, when the workload assigned by the employer seriously exceeds the normal standard, causing the worker to be unable to complete it within normal working hours or even overtime, it can be considered to have exceeded reasonable limits. Workers have the right to refuse this. If an employee refuses the employer's unreasonable work quota arrangement, it does not constitute disobedience to the work arrangement. Because the workload is set unreasonably and the employee is unable to complete it, and the employer terminates the labor contract on the grounds that the employee disobeys the arrangement, it is an illegal termination.
![The court ruled that in order to force employees to resign, they were required to complete 70 design drawings every day](https://a5qu.com/upload/images/07acae6602ce5849e81b26707b1a61c4.webp)