30% of the salary of RMB 7,000 for working from home was deducted. The company refused to repay the employee and sued the court. How did the court decide?

The 7,000 home office salary was deducted by 30%, and the company refused to repay the employee and sued the court

“Why should the home office salary be discounted?!” An employee in Suzhou, Jiangsu Province died due to the epidemic Because I was required to work from home, my monthly salary for working from home actually changed from 7,000 yuan to 2,500 yuan. The employees were dissatisfied and asked the company for reissue, but the company refused. In desperation, the employees filed arbitration and lawsuits against the company.

The thing is like this. Sun is an employee of a certain company and is mainly responsible for the company’s sales on the online platform. In January 2022, Sun's salary standard was increased to 7,000 yuan/month. But he was not happy for two days. Due to the local epidemic, Sun was asked to work from home. Even when working from home, Sun did not slack off at all. Through Sun's efforts, he completed 35 orders in February and received confirmation from the company. Sun feels that his performance this month is not much different from usual, and the company should pay wages as usual.

But the greater the hope, the greater the disappointment. The company only paid Sun 2,500 yuan as salary for February. The salary was less than half of the previous salary standard and could not cover his expenses. Sun couldn't accept it. But the company seems to be tougher and will not reissue the remaining balance. Afterwards, Sun initiated arbitration and litigation.

Have you ever encountered discounted wages for working from home? Do you think Sun can win the case? In this case, Sun worked from home and did not actually go to the company to provide labor, which fell into the flexible provision of labor under the aforementioned regulations. In this case, if the company believes that Sun provided less labor than usual during his home working period, the company should proactively negotiate with Sun to lower work standards.

But the company did not negotiate with Sun, so Sun has the right to require the company to pay him wages according to his normal wage standards for providing labor. In other words, the company should still pay Sun his salary for February at 7,000 yuan/month and cannot lower the salary standard at will. Of course, some netizens may have questions. If the company cannot operate normally, can't it pay Sun a living expense at 80% of the minimum wage? This 2,500 yuan is higher than the living expenses required by regulations.

The relevant wage payment regulations do contain such content, but the regulations have strict conditions, that is, the company suspends work and production. But in fact, the company in this case did not stop production, and Sun completed 35 orders. Even if work and production are suspended, the company should pay wages at the standard of 7,000 yuan during the first wage payment cycle. How did the court decide?

So, based on the above analysis and the facts of this case, the company should pay Sun a salary based on the standard of 7,000 yuan. Therefore, the court finally ordered the company to make up 4,500 yuan to Sun.

In fact, based on the fact that the company did not pay wages in full, Sun could terminate the labor contract with the company in accordance with the provisions of the Labor Contract Law and require the company to pay economic compensation. You may think that it is not easy to run a company during the epidemic, and Sun also wanted to continue working in the company, so he did not further assert his rights.

The occurrence of this case reminds employers that they must pay attention to labor and employment issues during epidemic prevention and control, be familiar with various employment regulations promulgated by national and local government departments, strictly implement them in accordance with the law, and avoid friction with workers. Once friction occurs, it will not only affect the stability of the employment relationship, but may also cause the unit to bear greater economic costs. What do you think of this case?