Basic Information

Appellant: Xiangtan Dazhong Human Resources Co., Ltd.

Respondent: Jianming Quan

Defendant of the first instance: Xiangtan Electrochemical Scientific Co., LTD

Court: Intermediate People’s Court of Xiangtan City

Case Number: (2013) Tan Zhong Min Yi Zhong Zi No. 496

Key Points of the Judgment:

Both dispatched employees and non-dispatched employees shall enjoy same right under equal pay for equal work standard. Accordingly, if a dispatched employee’ wage are lower than other non-dispatch employees who work at same department with same job position, and does same work, the employer or the contracting entity is obligated to pay the dispatched employee salary differential based on the “equal pay for equal work” standard.

Key Facts:

On March 19th, 2009, Appellee Jianming Quan signed a labor dispatch contract with Xiangtan Human Resources Ltd. He was dispatched to defendant Xiangtan Electrochemical Manganese Sulfate plant of Xiangtan Electrochemical Scientific Co., Ltd. (“Electro-Chemical Company”) to engage in repairing work. In April, 2010, Jianming Quan entered another labor dispatch contract with appellant Xiangtan Dazhong Human Resources Co., Ltd. (“Human Resource Company”), and he was still dispatched to Electro-Chemical Company to do the same work.

In the year of 2009 and 2010, Jianming Quan’s total wage was RMB 1200 that includes minimum salary plus merit salary. In the meantime, his colleagues Luo, Tan, and Ni who work in the same company with same job position, and do same type of work as Jianming Quan does, their salaries were almost same as Quan’s. In January 2011, Electro-Chemical Company made a wage adjustment. Based on the evidence that Jianming Quan submitted, it shows that Luo, Tan and Ni’s total wages were increased to RMB 2627/month, RMB 2742/month, and RMB 2850/month, respectively. However, Jianming Quan’s wage was adjusted to RMB 1400/month. Jianming Quan filed his application with Xiangtan Labor Dispute Arbitration Committee and asked for the compensation for salary differential. However, his claim was not supported.

Jianming Quan was not satisfied with the award and then filed a lawsuit with Xiangtan Yuetang District People’s Court. The trial court ruled in his favor. The ruling stated that employer (“Human Resource Company”) shall pay Jianming Quan’s salary differential stipulated under the standard of “equal pay for equal work”. The salary differential should be the shortage between RMB 1400/month, Jianming Quan’s monthly salary since January 2011, and RMB 2740/month, the average amount of Luo, Tan, and Ni’s monthly pay.

Human Resource Company appealed to Xiangtan Intermediate People's Court.

Judgment:

Appellant’s motion was dismissed, with the first-instance judgment affirmed.

Court’s Reasoning:

Before January 2011, Jianming Quan enjoyed similar monthly salary as the other three employees who have same job positions and did same type of work as Jianming Quan did. However, after the wage adjustment, difference appeared. The Human Resource Company and Electro-Chemical Company had not submitted any conclusive evidences to explain the reasons for such difference. The Trail Court’s ruling was based on Article 63 of Employment Contract Law, and decided the Human Resource Company shall pay Jianming Quan’s salary differential compensation in accordance with the equal pay for equal work standard. The original ruling complies with the law and should be affirmed.

Case Source: Judgment Document Website