Shanghai a company and Lei Mou other labor dispute bill

[Case classification] : Labor dispute

[Commissioned time] : July 2013

【 Brief introduction 】

From February 2009 to January 2012, the defendant was in charge of the plaintiff's sales work in a certain area, and implemented the work mode of basic salary plus quarterly and annual bonuses under the approved sales tasks. In the meantime, the defendant repeatedly violated the provisions of the plaintiff's office and privately promised the dealer market promotion expenses in order to complete the sales task and obtain quarterly and annual bonuses. In 2012, the distributor asked the plaintiff to report these marketing promotion expenses, and the plaintiff became aware of the situation and began to deal with it. The marketing promotion cost of the plaintiff is decided by the marketing headquarters, and the provincial manager and regional manager have no corresponding authority, and they are also sales personnel with the defendant, and their interests are consistent in completing the sales task. The defendant privately allowed the dealer's marketing promotion expenses, causing the plaintiff to lose 317,614 yuan of promotional overspending. In February 2012, the defendant continued to be responsible for product sales in a certain area, implementing a basic salary plus sales commission mode. In the meantime, in order to improve sales performance and obtain more commissions, the defendant repeatedly violated the provisions of the plaintiff's office, blindly prompted the dealer to order products, and failed to check the dealer's inventory as required by the plaintiff, resulting in a backlog of products and exceeding the warranty period, resulting in a loss of 91,500 yuan of poor product inventory disposal costs for the plaintiff.

【 Lawyer analysis 】

The settlement of labor disputes shall be in accordance with the principles of legality, fairness and timely handling, and the legitimate rights and interests of the parties to the labor dispute shall be safeguarded according to law. In this case, the plaintiff requires the defendant to bear 20% of the market promotion overspend of $317,614 from March 2011 to January 2012, that is, $63,522.80. Upon examination, the plaintiff's advice on the disposal of the office's overspending on marketing expenses in 2011 was issued on 22 May 2012, and the relevant marketing promotion expenses as set out in the application for marketing expenses were incurred before that date; Although the defendant was the validator of the marketing expense application form, he was not the final reviewer of the marketing promotion expense; Although the plaintiff claimed that RMB 317,614 of the marketing promotion expenses involved in the case was the overspent promotional expenses, it did not provide evidence to prove the total marketing promotion expenses and the specific standards for overspending, so the plaintiff's request that the defendant bear the overspent marketing promotion expenses of RMB 63,522.80 is insufficient.

The plaintiff asked the defendant to bear the cost of $9,150 for the disposal of defective inventory from February 2012 to July 2012. However, the notice issued by the plaintiff on April 28, 2011 on strengthening the inventory control of dealers requires the sales staff to strengthen the control of the inventory of dealers and implement the responsibility traceability system for the destruction of the bad inventory of dealers. On the one hand, the generation of the dealer's bad inventory is affected by the market environment, the product itself, the dealer's own factors, etc. The plaintiff agrees to reimburse the dealer's bad inventory disposal costs based on its own business interests. The defendant, as a front-line salesperson, had a relatively weak role to play. On the other hand, according to the four application forms for market expenses filled in February 2012, the plaintiff agreed to reimburse the relevant dealers for the defective inventory disposal costs of a total of 91,500 yuan, but there is no evidence to reflect that the plaintiff has actually paid these defective inventory disposal costs. Therefore, the plaintiff's request that the defendant bear the cost of 9,150 yuan for the disposal of defective inventory from February 2012 to July 2012 is insufficient.

The plaintiff seeks compensation of $22,500 for economic losses in June 2011. The seal in the information statement provided by the plaintiff is not consistent with the seal in the distribution contract, and the plaintiff has not provided evidence to prove that the goods involved have indeed been sent to other dealers, that other dealers have not paid the payment after the demand, and that the defendant has illegal transfer of the payment, etc., so the request is insufficient.

【 Verdict 】

After Chen Zhijuan lawyer representation, the final court rejected the plaintiff's lawsuit request.