How to achieve legal and reasonable unilateral salary reduction
Question raising
Cui joined an insurance company in May 2023 and both parties signed a two-year labor contract. The labor contract stipulates that Cui works as a senior employee welfare planner at level three in the development department of group insurance, and his monthly salary consists of basic salary, performance and management bonus. The insurance company has formulated the Basic Management Measures for Group Insurance Sales Personnel (hereinafter referred to as the "Measures") through democratic consultation procedures and made it public to employees. According to the Measures, 50% of the basic salary of employee welfare planners is linked to monthly scores. Monthly evaluations will be conducted in four aspects: activity volume, team collaboration, attendance, and meeting training, and the corresponding basic salary amount for employees at each job level is specified. In October 2023, based on Cui's monthly evaluation results, the insurance company reduced his monthly salary by 900 yuan, and his rank was downgraded from Level 3 of Senior Employee Welfare Planner to Level 2 of Senior Employee Welfare Planner. In December 2023, Cui's monthly salary was once again reduced by 900 yuan, and his rank was downgraded by two levels, from Level 2 of Senior Employee Welfare Planner to Level 2 of Employee Welfare Planner.
Cui believes that the unilateral reduction of his salary by the insurance company is illegal, so he unilaterally terminates the labor contract and files a labor arbitration request on the grounds that the insurance company did not pay the labor remuneration in full and on time. 1. The insurance company will make up for the salary from October to December 2023; 2. Insurance companies pay economic compensation. The case went through labor arbitration, first instance, and second instance procedures, and Cui's request was not supported.
Lawyer Interpretation
The focus of controversy in this case is whether the unilateral reduction of Cui's salary by the insurance company is legal and reasonable. In the trial of the case, both the arbitration commission and the first and second instance courts held that (1) the Measures clearly stipulated that 50% of Cui's basic salary was linked to the monthly evaluation results, and also stipulated the amount of demotion and salary reduction corresponding to the monthly evaluation results; (2) The Measures formulated by the insurance company have gone through democratic consultation and public disclosure procedures, and have been made public to Cui. The Measures are binding on Cui; (3) The insurance company conducts monthly evaluations of Cui based on four aspects: activity volume, team collaboration, attendance, and meeting training, which is objective and does not harm the interests of employees. Therefore, there is no situation where labor remuneration is not paid in full and on time, and there is no need to make up for the salary or pay economic compensation to Cui.
From the perspective of the judgment approach in this case, the arbitration commission and court did not directly determine that the unilateral salary reduction behavior of the employer was illegal. Instead, they evaluated the legality and rationality of the unilateral salary reduction behavior based on the employer's rules and regulations, as well as the authenticity and objectivity of the employer's assessment of employees. The employer shall bear the burden of proof for labor disputes arising from the reduction of labor remuneration. It is recommended that employers meet the following conditions when unilaterally reducing employee salaries: (1) rules and regulations stipulate or labor contracts stipulate that employee salaries are linked to assessment results, and the rules and regulations are subject to democratic consultation and public disclosure procedures; (2) The employer has assessed the employees according to the assessment procedure, and the assessment results meet the conditions for reducing wages; (3) Employers assess employees fairly and impartially; (4) The reduced salary is within a reasonable range.
Related recommendations
- Is the owner responsible for repayment if WeChat is borrowed by someone else?
- What should I do if my employer's dissolution encounters occupational health check ups?
- Can judicial appraisal institutions only be selected from the appraisal list?
- Non compete restrictions need to be cautious and not let agreements become empty words