Huawei employee’s ‘fighter’s pledge’ legally binding, China court rules
- Product manager Zeng Meng thought the declaration ‘no big deal’ but it cost his claim to benefits from telecoms giant
- Pledge is commonly used by Chinese technology companies to boost morale and encourage team building
- 27 Oct, 2020
As part of its defence, the company argued Zeng had voluntarily given up his claim to some benefits when he signed the pledge. The court ruled that, according to Huawei’s work guidelines, overtime work required supervisors’ approval and Zeng had failed to show that he had such approval and that the overtime work happened as claimed.
Zeng said he had not appreciated the significance of the pledge when he joined the company. “At that time, I didn’t think signing it would be a big deal,” he said.
During his employment with Huawei, Zeng was assigned first to West Africa and then Morocco but in 2017 he was transferred back to Shenzhen and sidelined, after a supervisor found his performance “unsatisfactory”. Zeng said that for about a year he was given virtually no assignment.
Then, in May 2018, he took three days of absence after seeking, but not receiving, his supervisor’s approval. Zeng said he was notified about a week later that he had been fired for absenteeism without approval.
Zhang Bo, a Shanghai-based labour lawyer, said declarations like the
“fighter’s pledge” were considered legally binding under current Chinese laws.
“The employees may have signed such an agreement as they consider it as part of the company’s culture or for other reasons,” Zhang said. “But, once they have signed it, [the pledge] is considered legally effective unless they can prove that they signed it as a result of trickery, coercion or were at risk.”
Zeng said he planned to lodge an application for review at the provincial prosecutors office in the slim hope that his case would be reconsidered.
Huawei did not respond to an interview request.
Li, who worked for Huawei for 12 years, was eventually released, he said, because the prosecutors did not have enough evidence to press charges.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments always welcome!