Li Mou confirmed labor relations dispute with a company in Shanghai

[Case classification] : Labor disputes

[Commissioned time] : January 2016

【 Brief introduction 】

Between March 19 and May 31, 2015, the plaintiff worked at the Defendant's office as a cook. On the afternoon of May 31 of the same year, a colleague at work did not hold a knife steadily, fell on his foot, and cut his foot. After the incident by the chef Ding Mou, colleagues Li Mou will be sent to a hospital in Shanghai for treatment. At that time, Ding Mou used Ding Mou's name in the plaintiff's outpatient and emergency medical records as required by the defendant. Afterwards, Ding Mou informed the plaintiff's father to take him home to recuperate. Now the defendant denies that the plaintiff is an employee of the defendant, so the lawsuit is filed.

【 Lawyer analysis 】

According to the provisions, the parties have the responsibility to provide evidence to prove the facts based on their own claims or the facts based on refuting the claims of the other party. In this case, although the witness Li Moumou has an interest in the plaintiff, his testimony about the plaintiff's entry process can be confirmed by the work card provided by the plaintiff which is consistent with the form of other employees of the defendant. The testimony of the witness regarding the treatment of the plaintiff's injury can also be corroborated with the contents of the outpatient and emergency medical records provided by the plaintiff. The witness's testimony is therefore admissible. If the documentary evidence is under the control of the other party, the party bearing the burden of proof may apply to the people's court to order the other party to submit it. If the other party refuses to submit it without justifiable reasons, the contents of the documentary evidence claimed by the applicant may be determined to be true. In addition, according to the relevant provisions, the employer must record in writing the amount of wages paid to the worker, the time, the name and signature of the recipient, and keep it for more than two years for reference. Now it refuses to submit without justifiable reasons and should bear adverse consequences, so there is the fact that the defendant pays wages to the plaintiff. In summary, the plaintiff's claim to confirm that he had an employment relationship with the defendant between March 19, 2015 and January 18, 2016 should be supported.

【 Verdict 】

Represented by lawyer Wang Zhen, the court supported the plaintiff's claim and ordered that the plaintiff and the defendant had a labor relationship between March 19, 2015 and January 18, 2016 in a Shanghai company.