The Interpretation (III) of the Supreme People's Court on
Several Issues on the Application of Law in the Trial of Labour
Dispute Cases ("Interpretation III"),
which was adopted by the Judicial Committee of the Supreme
People's Court on 12 July 2010, came into effect on 14
September 2010. The salient points of the Interpretation III are
Firstly, Interpretation III instructs courts to accept three
kinds of cases: 1. cases where an employee demands damages from an
employer because the employee cannot obtain social insurance benefi
ts due to the employer's failure to undertake relevant social
insurance formalities, 2. cases concerning disputes arising out of
the restructuring of enterprises and 3. cases demanding additional
damages arising out of situations such as an enterprise's
failure to pay for overtime.
Secondly, Interpretation III recognises the employment service
relationship between an employer and an employee who is already
entitled to pension insurance benefi ts or is drawing a pension.
Where there is any employment dispute arising and then a lawsuit
thereabout is brought to the court, the court shall address such
lawsuit as a dispute on employment relationship.
In addition, Interpretation III assigns the burden of proof for
demon strating an entitlement to overtime pay. An employee who
claims overtime pay must submit evidence to prove overtime work.
However, if an employee can demonstrate that their employer
possesses evidence of overtime work but has failed to provide it,
the employer will be adversely affected.
Moreover, according to existing legal provisions, if an arbitral
award is made where an employee requests compensation for lost
salary and medical expenses for a work-related injury, or economic
indemnity or compensation in a small amount, it is considered a fi
nal judgment. Interpretation III now specifi es this "small
amount" as being no more than one year of the local minimum
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
Long experience representing many of Australia's leading employers has taught us that in employment litigation the identity of an employee's representative is a major factor in how employee litigation runs.
This WHS decision clarified the interpretation of s 19 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (NSW).
Some comments from our readers… “The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable” “I often find critical information not available elsewhere” “As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).