The Company Was Paid Nearly 170 Thousand Yuan For The Employee'S Dismissal From The Factory.

Mr. Yang is a family in Zhongshan.

The technical engineer of a shoemaking company was laid off in May last year because he had several pairs of model shoes.

Yang believed that Mr. Yang had violated the company's relevant system seriously.

He applied for arbitration to the labor department, and the two sides subsequently held court.

In November 17th, the Municipal Intermediate People's court informed the final judgment of the civil dispute.

Mr. Yang is a native of Jiangxi. In 2008, he began to serve as a product technology engineer in a shoemaking enterprise in Zhongshan. In 2013, he was appointed to the operation Department of the manufacturer as a mechanic, with a monthly salary of more than 1.4 yuan.

In December 18, 2014, Mr. Yang took off with a handbag.

After the factory security booth, security guard Tang let Mr. Yang open.

I found two pairs of developing sample shoes inside.

After that, security guard Tang was rewarded 10 thousand yuan, and Mr. Yang was dismissed.

According to the company's regulations, the factory with shoes must be examined and approved by the "internal liaison letter" and can be released after holding the "goods carrying certificate".

"I usually take the shoes out of the factory," the article carries the card "and fill in and sign the company's manager, Guo, who will be put in the security office, so that he can take the shoes out of the factory directly.

Mr. Yang said he was intercepted when he took his shoes out of the factory in December 18, 2014. The security guard said that the deputy general manager of the company came to the factory the same day.

Thus, Mr. Yang called the clerks and Guo manager on the spot. Guo confirmed that he had signed the "goods with the card", while the clerk said that the deputy chief had not signed and could not take the shoes out of the factory.

In May 13, 2015,

A notice to terminate the labor contract was issued to Mr. Yang.

The company believes that Mr. Yang's private shoe production is in violation of the company's regulations.

Mr. Yang then applied for arbitration to the labor department. The shoemaking enterprise was found to be an illegal dismissal and should pay Mr. Yang's compensation for breaking the labor contract for nearly 170 thousand yuan.

Shoemaking enterprises subsequently filed a lawsuit against the court.

Did Mr. Yang take his shoes out of the factory without approval process, whether it constituted theft? In this regard, the manager of the factory, Guo Mou, testified in court. His statement is somewhat different from that of Mr. Yang.

"The staff member applies for the sample shoes that are not produced in bulk and tries to wear them out of the factory. It is necessary to submit an internal contact letter to the chairman of the company for approval. Only when the goods are carried out, can the shoe be taken away from the factory."

Guo admitted that he signed the "internal liaison letter" on the same day, but also said that the letter had not been approved by the chairman of the company.

Moreover, he did not issue "goods to carry out the card" to Mr. Yang.

The court held that the two sides had a dispute about whether the "internal liaison letter" should be signed by the chairman of the company before the approval process was completed. In view of the fact that the shoe manufacturers did not produce more conclusive evidence to further prove the rules and regulations of the approval process, the court could not verify whether the application of Mr. Yang to carry out the sample shoes had completed the approval process.

According to the law, enterprises should bear the consequences of ineffective proof. The court accepted Yang's statement that he had completed the approval process of "internal liaison letter".

As for the fact that Mr. Yang does not have the "goods to carry out the card", the process is identical with the process of issuing the "internal liaison letter" and "goods carrying the card". The court accepted Mr. Yang's assertion that he had been under the usual approval process on the same day, and was intercepted by the security company because he was signed by the deputy chief of the company that was not yet on the same day.

In the first instance, the court ordered the company to compensate Mr. Yang for nearly 170 thousand yuan.