The employee handbook states the non-competition agreement, and the employee sues Inspur to the court for compensation of 1,000,000 yuan
Said in front: labor disputes in the new judicial interpretation of such a, is related to the position of competition restrictions.The explanation indicates that if the two parties do not agree on the non-competition fee, the employer will be more passive, and the employer is not willing to pay the non-competition fee, it is best not to stipulate the non-competition clauses in the labor contract or the relevant agreement on the non-competition.Let’s take a look at today’s competition case.Guo * sues the court of first instance: Inspur Company is ordered to pay Guo * 1000000 yuan of compensation for non-competition, and the legal costs of this case shall be borne by Inspur Company.The first-instance court confirmed the fact that Guo * joined Inspur Company on February 12, 2019, and both parties signed a labor contract from February 12, 2019 to February 28, 2022 on the same day. The probation period ends on May 11, 2019. The salary standard for the probation period is 18,000 yuan per month, and the position is hardware test engineer.Guo * resigned on March 14, 2019.Guo * with wave company advocates “the non-compete agreement, and declared in the employee handbook, wave company to it expounds the relevant contents of” non-compete agreement “, to strictly abide by the personal responsibility and obligation, the two sides in the employee handbook specifically the non-compete agreement, but this non-compete agreement under the wave of company control.Inspur denied this, arguing that the two sides did not sign a non-compete agreement under which Guo * assumed non-compete obligations after leaving the company.Guo * to prove that both parties have signed a non-compete agreement, and submit the employee handbook reading confirmation receipt (hereinafter referred to as the receipt) for evidence.The bottom of the receipt shall be signed and confirmed by Guo * and the date is February 12, 2019.Confidentiality and non-competition are not contained in the employee handbook.Inspur company recognizes the authenticity of the employee handbook and return receipt, but does not recognize the purpose of proof. It maintains that the return receipt only proves that the employee has received the employee handbook, and the sentence in item 5 of return receipt is a fixed expression.The parties did not actually sign a non-compete agreement and non-disclosure agreement.The expression in item 5 does not stipulate the non-competition obligation, nor does it stipulate the compensation standard, liquidated damages, the scope and period of the non-competition limitation, which cannot prove that the parties have the non-competition limitation agreement.Trial, guo * argues that both parties prescribe a period for the two-year non-compete, non-competition compensation standards for 12 months of average wage 30% before leaving, non-compete unit is the company’s competitors, also cannot be engaged in with the tide of similar business development work, unless the company in written form to inform employees without non-compete obligations,Otherwise, if he/she leaves the company for any reason, he/she shall fulfill the obligation of non-competition, otherwise, he/she shall bear the penalty, the standard of which is 3 times or 5 times of all the compensation (I can’t remember the details).In addition, Guo * claims that both parties signed a non-compete agreement on February 12, 2019, and also signed the labor contract and employee manual. However, Inspur Company did not provide him with a non-compete agreement. He once asked inspur for a non-compete agreement, but the company did not provide him with proof that he asked for a non-compete agreement.Guo * applied to labor and Personnel Dispute Arbitration Committee of Haidian District, Beijing on the grounds of requesting inspur Company to compensate 1,000,000 yuan for non-competition. The arbitration Committee made the following ruling on July 30, 2020: Guo *’s arbitration request was rejected.Guo * refused to accept the ruling and filed a lawsuit with the court within the legal time limit.The first-instance court held that the focus of the dispute in this case was whether item 5 in the receipt could prove that both parties had signed the Non-competition Agreement.First of all, from the point of view of the purpose of signing the receipt, since the employee handbook is formulated by Inspur Company rather than an agreement signed by both parties, the signed receipt plays the role of delivery.The Intellectual Property Declaration and Confidentiality Agreement and the Non-Compete Agreement are both agreements, which shall come into force after being signed and confirmed by both parties without the need for a confirmation receipt.Second, the receipt is a confirmation of reading the employee handbook, which does not contain confidentiality and non-competition provisions.To me at the same time, from the fifth “company has expounded the” declaration of intellectual property and confidentiality agreement “and” non-compete agreement “related content, I have been aware of and comply with the individual should be responsible and obligation” expression, if both parties have signed the agreement, nor in the return receipt confirmation has the necessary of the related content;Finally, Although Guo * claimed that he had asked inspur for a non-competition agreement, he did not submit corresponding evidence for this claim.In summary, in the absence of other evidence, the content of item 5 in the receipt is not enough to prove that both parties have signed a non-compete agreement.Therefore, in the absence of sufficient evidence to prove the existence of the non-competition agreement between the two parties, the court does not support Guo *’s request for the payment of 1,000,000 YUAN of non-competition compensation from Inspur Company.The court of second instance held that: in this case, Guo * claimed that Inspur Company issued the Employee Handbook to him and explained the relevant contents of the Non-compete Agreement, and his signature in the receipt confirmed that both parties had signed the non-compete Agreement.In this regard, the court holds that the employee manual is the rules and regulations formulated by the employer for the management of workers, and is the unilateral employment instructions and requirements of the employer to the workers, rather than the result of the consensus among equal subjects.Guo * received wave company after entry to the the handbook and sign a receipt, among them about wave v of the “employee handbook” to guo * expounds “non-compete agreement” relevant content, but this is just a wave of companies to guo * related instructions of employment and employment requirements of shi Ming, inform and non-compete, etc to guo * expounds, preaching.The specific content, specific period and economic compensation standard of non-competition matters are not specified in the Employee Handbook and return receipt, so it cannot be determined that the parties have reached consensus on the main rights and obligations of both parties in the non-competition agreement.Therefore, the parties did not reach an agreement on the non-competition agreement in the form of issuing the Employee Handbook and signing the return receipt. The first-instance court held that it was correct, and the appeal reason held by Guo * that he had agreed on the non-competition agreement with Inspur Company could not be established, and the court did not accept it.As the Employee Handbook and return receipt submitted by Guo * cannot prove that he has signed a non-compete agreement with Inspur Company, his appeal reason that he has fulfilled the initial burden of proof cannot be established, and the court does not accept it.Prohibition of competition means that the laborer receives corresponding economic compensation from the employer for performing the obligation of prohibition of competition after the termination or dissolution of the labor relationship. Therefore, the appeal reason held by Guo * that he has complied with the obligation of prohibition of competition at least during his tenure is untenable and the court does not accept it.In addition, the non-competition agreement is a special agreement between the employer and the worker on the choice of the job after the employee leaves the company. In the absence of a special agreement, the worker does not need to comply with the obligation of non-competition.Since Inspur Company and Guo * have not signed a non-compete agreement, it is naturally unnecessary for inspur Company to explicitly inform Guo * that it is not required to perform the non-compete obligation when Guo * leaves the company. Therefore, inspur Company held by Guo * does not explicitly inform guo * that it is not required to perform the non-compete obligation. Therefore, the appeal reason excluding his freedom of employment cannot be established and the court does not accept it.The appeal was dismissed and the judgment upheld.