My Ex-employer Put Me on Blacklist, What Can I Do?

Working in China, one significant concern for expatriates is being placed on a blacklist, which would render them unable to apply for work permits or potentially green cards in the future.

China operates a nationwide work permit application system. Should a foreigner appear on the blacklist, when they attempt to renew or transfer their work permits, the system flags the application to government officials, who immediately reject it.

But who has the authority to place a foreigner on the blacklist? Only competent authorities like the Public Security Bureau (PSB) or the Bureau of Foreign Experts Affairs (BFEA) hold such power. Regular companies, schools, or agent firms do not have this authority.

Despite this, some employers or agents might falsely threaten foreign workers with blacklisting, claiming that they’ll make it impossible for them to secure employment elsewhere if they’re deemed “uncooperative,” such as when the employee wishes to terminate their association. However, these threats are baseless. As long as a foreigner is legally employed and adheres to Chinese laws and regulations, they cannot be arbitrarily blacklisted.

An unusual case surfaced where an online recruitment company maintained a self-made blacklist on their website. When teachers decided to part ways with the company or declined their offers, the company listed these individuals along with personal details and derogatory remarks, advising others to avoid them.

While this “homemade” blacklist is unofficial and does not impact the ability to find new jobs officially, it poses serious issues:

  1. It publicly disclosed teachers’ personal information.
  2. It fabricated stories to tarnish the reputations of these teachers.

Here, two types of torts were committed: #1 constitutes an invasion of privacy, while #2 amounts to defamation. Thus, the so-called “blacklist” represents a severe civil offense.

As more foreigners became aware of this issue, they collectively took action by contacting their embassies and informing the recruiting company’s business partners about the problem. Under mounting pressure, the company ultimately removed the blacklist from their website. Had someone obtained notarized evidence of the blacklist, they could have filed a lawsuit against the company and likely won, as China is actively improving its legal framework to better protect privacy rights.

  1. No one can blacklist you unless they are a competent authority; know your rights and assert them confidently.
  2. If anyone improperly discloses your personal details publicly, you can sue them based on the violation of your privacy rights.
  3. Individuals who defame others will face consequences for their actions.

Relevant provisions in The Civil Code of the PRC:

Article 1024: Civil subjects enjoy the right to reputation. No organization or individual may infringe upon another person’s right to reputation through means such as insult or defamation.

Article 1032: Natural persons enjoy the right to privacy. No organization or individual may infringe upon another person’s right to privacy by means such as prying, disturbance, disclosure, or publication.

The Vehicle Owner Should Be Responsible for Traffic Accident?Understanding Principle of No-fault Liability

On a rainy day, Mr. Wang lost control of his minibus causing it to overturn and collide with Mr. Liu, who was busy covering his truck with a rain tarp. This resulted in injuries to Mr. Liu. After failing to reach a settlement regarding compensation, Mr. Liu brought the matter to the first-instance court.

Mr. Liu argued that, despite the traffic accident being confirmed by the police as an unforeseen incident, the injuries he sustained were directly caused by the rupture of the right rear tire of Mr. Wang’s minibus leading to the overturn and collision. Therefore, Mr. Wang should assume corresponding economic liability for the damages incurred due to Mr. Liu’s injuries.

Mr. Wang countered that the accident was indeed an unforeseen incident and that he bore no fault in its occurrence.

The first-instance court, after examining the case, held that in accidents happened between motor vehicles and non-motorized vehicles/pedestrians, the motor vehicle party assumes no-fault liability. Although the police concluded that both parties were faultless in this accidental occurrence, the causal relationship between Mr. Liu’s injuries and Mr. Wang’s vehicular impact was evident, and there was no evidence indicating that Mr. Liu was at fault. Consequently, the owner/driver, Mr. Wang, was ordered to bear full compensation responsibility.

Unsatisfied with the result, Mr. Wang appealed, but the second-instance court upheld the ruling of the first-instance court, which applied the principle of no-fault liability.

Case analysis:

Article 1165 of the Civil Code of the PRC provides: Where a person causes harm to another’s civil rights due to a wrongful act, they shall bear tortious liability. This embodies the general principle of liability in civil torts: the principle of fault.

In contrast, the principle of no-fault liability dictates that under specific circumstances stipulated by law, a person who has not acted wrongfully shall still bear civil liability based on the resulting harm. The conditions for applying this principle are:

 (1) a clearly defined scope of application by law;

(2) disregard of the subjective fault of the infringing party;

(3) existence of statutory exemptions; and

(4) presence of causality.

Then, why was the principle of no-fault liability applied in this case?

Firstly, for non-motorized vehicles and pedestrians, motor vehicles represent high-speed moving tools that inherently carry a significantly higher risk factor. Thus, drivers of motor vehicles should be held to a heightened standard of cautious driving and safety awareness.

Secondly, according to the theory of benefit-based liability, i.e., ‘whoever enjoys the benefits bears the risks’, the owner of a vehicle, as the beneficiary of its operation, should naturally assume the risks associated with it, beneficiaries must pay the price for their gains, ensuring that those pursuing their interests simultaneously shoulder the risks inherent to those gains.

This aligns with economic rationality and the principles of fairness and reasonableness in civil law. Otherwise, it would be egregiously unfair if a pedestrian, who is faultless, were to bear the risks stemming from the actions of a motor vehicle operator. Modern legal systems typically prioritize protecting the weaker party in conflicts between two rights holders.

Generally, the provisions of the Tort Liability Chapter in the Civil Code show that the principle of no-fault liability mainly applies to the following scenarios: * liability of guardians for harm caused by minors under their supervision;

* employer liability for harm caused by employees;

* producer liability for product defects resulting in harm;

* motor vehicle owners’ liability for harm caused to non-motorized vehicles or pedestrians in traffic accidents;

* liability for environmental pollution and ecological damage causing harm;

* liability for harm caused by high-risk activities or facilities;

*and liability for harm caused by non-zoo kept animals.

Now, do you understand why the principle of no-fault liability was applied in this case?

Severance Payment for Termination of Employment in China

According to the provisions of the Labor Contract Law of PRC, employers are required to pay compensation to employees under the following situations:

(1) In situations specified in Article 38, Section 1 of the Labor Contract Law, where the employee terminates the labor contract, the employer shall pay compensation: I

1.The employer fails to provide labor protection or working conditions as agreed in the labor contract.

2.The employer fails to pay labor remuneration in a timely and full manner.

3.The employer fails to lawfully contribute to social insurance premiums for the employee.

4.The employer’s rules and regulations violate laws and regulations, causing harm to the rights of the employee.

5.The employer uses deception, coercion, or takes advantage of the employee’s vulnerability to enter into or modify the labor contract against the true intent, rendering the contract invalid.    

6.The employer exempts itself from legal responsibilities or excludes the rights of the employee, rendering the labor contract invalid.

7.The employer enters into a labor contract in violation of mandatory provisions of laws and administrative regulations, rendering the contract invalid.

8.The employer uses violence, threats, or illegal restrictions on personal freedom to force labor.

9.The employer issues illegal commands, forces risky operations, and endangers the personal safety of the employee.

10.Payment of wages to employees below the local minimum wage standards. (Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Labor Dispute Cases, Article 15)

(2) When the employer terminates the labor contract, compensation shall be paid to the employee:

1.As stipulated in Article 36 of the Labor Contract Law, the employer proposes and both parties negotiate the termination of the labor contract.    

2.In situations specified in Article 40 of the Labor Contract Law, where the employer terminates the labor contract:

a) The employee is sick or non-work-related injured, unable to engage in the original work after the prescribed medical period, and cannot be reassigned by the employer.

b) The employee is incapable of performing the work, even after training or adjusting the job position.

c) The objective circumstances on which the labor contract was based have undergone significant changes, making it impossible to perform the contract. After negotiation between the employer and the employee, no agreement is reached on changing the content of the labor contract.

3.In situations specified in Article 41, Section 1 of the Labor Contract Law:

a) The employer undergoes reorganization according to the regulations on enterprise bankruptcy, leading to personnel reductions.

b) The employer faces serious difficulties in production and operation, leading to personnel reductions.

c) The enterprise undergoes restructuring, major technological innovation, or business adjustment, requiring personnel reductions.    

d) Other significant changes in objective economic conditions relied upon at the time of concluding the labor contract, making the labor contract impossible to perform.

(3) When terminating the labor contract, compensation shall be paid to the employee (as specified in Article 44 of the Labor Contract Law):

1.The labor contract expires, and the employer terminates the fixed-term labor contract because the employee agrees to renew it but the employer does not.

2.The labor contract is terminated because the employer is legally declared bankrupt.

3.The labor contract is terminated because the employer’s business license is revoked, ordered to close, revoked, or the employer decides to dissolve in advance.

In addition, the determination of the wage in the severance payment  is specified in Article 47 of the Labor Contract Law. After the termination or rescission of the labor contract, the employer should pay compensation to the employee based on the employee’s years of service in the company, one month’s salary for each full year of service.    

For service periods of more than six months but less than one year, it is calculated as one year; and for periods of less than six months, half a month’s salary is paid as economic compensation.

The “wage” in the Labor Contract Law refers to the labor remuneration directly paid to the employee by the employer in monetary form, based on relevant national regulations or the agreement in the labor contract.

This generally includes hourly wages, piece-rate wages, bonuses, allowances, subsidies, and overtime pay, as well as wages paid under special circumstances. In practice, an employee’s wages typically consist of basic wages, payable wages, and actual wages. Basic wages are usually the minimum salary set by the employer for the employee, generally excluding overtime pay, allowances, subsidies, and welfare benefits. Payable wages refer to the total wages that the employee is entitled to according to legal regulations, including basic wages, overtime pay, bonuses, and allowances. Actual wages are the amount the employee actually receives each month, usually reduced by some expenses such as social insurance contributions, income tax, meal fees, and rent. The calculation compensation should be based on the employee’s payable wages, not basic wages or actual wages.    

The Implementation Regulations of the Labor Contract Law, Article 27, stipulate that the monthly wage for economic compensation under Article 47 of the Labor Contract Law is calculated based on the employee’s entitled wages, including monetary income such as hourly wages or piece-rate wages, as well as bonuses, allowances, and subsidies.

If the employee’s average wage in the 12 months before the termination or rescission of the labor contract is lower than the local minimum wage standard, it should be calculated based on the local minimum wage standard. For employees who have worked for less than 12 months, the average wage should be calculated based on the actual number of months worked.   

What to Do if You Buy a Refurbished Phone on Taobao?

On April 2nd of last year, Alex purchased an iPhone 5 from a Taobao store for the price of 2979.63 yuan. Upon receiving the phone, he found that the information registered for this phone through its serial number did not match the information provided by the seller on Taobao.

On April 15th, he requested a refund from the seller citing discrepancies in the registered information, but the request was denied. The seller insisted that Alex must return the phone first. On the same day, Alex applied for Taobao’s intervention, but the seller continued to refuse a refund without the return of the phone.

On April 22nd, after Taobao intervened, it was determined that Alex needed to return the phone for a refund. However, Alex disagreed. He sent the phone to China Inspection and Certification Group Beijing Co., Ltd. (referred to as Zhongjian Company) for inspection. He requested Taobao and the seller to wait for the inspection report before proceeding with the legal refund process.

On April 29th, Taobao’s trading system automatically closed the refund system due to the buyer exceeding the return deadline, and the payment of 2979.63 yuan in the system was transferred to the seller.

On May 6th, Zhongjian Company completed the inspection and issued a report confirming that the inspected phone was a refurbished device. At this point, Alex’s payment had already been transferred to the seller’s account. Therefore, based on the inspection report, Alex again requested Taobao’s intervention, asking the seller to comply with the new Consumer Rights Law and provide a threefold refund. However, the seller still insisted that Alex must return the product before receiving a refund.

Taobao claimed that, despite the evidence provided by Alex, they supported his request for a return and refund. However, due to the seller’s lack of cooperation in after-sales service, Taobao could not recover the losses for Alex. Therefore, Taobao could only impose a penalty on the seller’s account for “misrepresentation.”

Frustrated, Alex had no choice but to file a lawsuit against Taobao, seeking triple compensation. The court found that although Taobao took some measures after learning that Alex had purchased a refurbished device, these measures were insufficient to protect the rights of the victimized consumer, Alex.    

Regarding Alex’s demand for Taobao to pay triple compensation, the court ruled that the seller’s deposit on Taobao did not reach the amount of triple compensation requested by Alex. Therefore, the court did not support Alex’s request for Taobao to pay triple punitive damages.

Article 44 of the Consumer Rights Protection Law of the People’s Republic of China stipulates that the liability of network trading platform providers (like Taobao )to consumers is limited to three situations:

1. If they cannot provide the true name, address, and valid contact information of the seller or service provider, consumers can demand compensation from the platform provider;

2. If the platform provider makes promises that are more favorable to consumers, they must fulfill those promises;

3. If the platform provider knowingly or should have known that the seller or service provider is using its platform to infringe on the legitimate rights and interests of consumers and fails to take necessary measures, they shall bear joint and several liability with the seller or service provider.

In this case, Alex purchased a counterfeit phone, and Taobao’s requirement for him to return the counterfeit product before refunding it constitutes an unreasonable and biased provision in favor of the seller. Taobao did not continue to withhold the payment under the circumstances, which constitutes a failure to take necessary measures and directly led to the consumer not receiving a refund. Therefore, it complies with Article 44, Paragraph 3 of the Consumer Rights Protection Law, and such a judgment in favor of Alex was made.

Is Office Camera Installation a Violation of Employee Privacy?

On February 1, 2020, Company B installed multiple high-definition surveillance cameras in the work area, one of which was located above the desk of an employee, Ms. Zhu. Ms. Zhu believed that the camera captured her personal privacy, so she used two umbrellas to cover the camera while not obstructing the normal operation of other cameras.

After two oral communications between the HR manager of Company B and Ms. Zhu, the company sent two written “warning letters” to Ms. Zhu. However, Ms. Zhu continued to use umbrellas at her desk for more than ten working days.

On March 7, 2020, Company B terminated the labor contract with Ms. Zhu, citing her serious breach of discipline in using an umbrella at her desk.

Ms. Zhu believed that Company B’s termination of the contract was illegal and filed a lawsuit seeking compensation.

However, the case was dismissed in the first instance, second instance, and retrial.

The final judgment stated the following :

1. Was Company B’s installation of surveillance cameras in the office reasonable?

According to Company B’s statement issued before the installation , the purpose of installing surveillance cameras was to ensure the safety of people, property, and assets in the workplace.

The installation area was a common area where multiple people worked, rather than an individual’s personal workspace. It was not a private living area of employees. The camera was installed in a typical corner location to monitor the area without blind spots.

The installation of surveillance cameras by Company B was considered a reasonable act in line with the general management rights of employers. Ms. Zhu failed to provide evidence that Company B had any other purpose for this installation. The court found that Company B’s installation of surveillance cameras in the office was not inappropriate.

2. Did the installation of surveillance cameras infringe on Ms. Zhu’s personal privacy?    

Ms. Zhu claimed that the camera’s position infringed on her rights, but the specific analysis based on the evidence she provided did not support her claim. As an employee, Ms. Zhu was expected to accept the employer’s management in terms of working hours and workspace. Although surveillance cameras might capture her account passwords, these passwords were meant for work-related tasks, not personal matters, and did not fall under the category of personal privacy information.

As for Ms. Zhu’s claim that her location could be filmed, in practice, proper dressing in an office environment could easily prevent any so-called “indecent exposure” issues.

3. Did Ms. Zhu seriously violate labor discipline?

Ms. Zhu continued to use an umbrella at her desk to avoid surveillance cameras for more than ten working days, despite four instances of verbal and written communication by Company B.

Her refusal to comply with company management not only had a negative impact on other employees but also undermined the effectiveness of the company’s management system. Therefore, her behavior constituted a serious violation of labor discipline. Company B was within its legal rights to terminate the labor contract with Ms. Zhu.

The main controversy in this case was whether Company B’s termination of the labor contract was illegal. In essence, it deals with the boundaries of protecting employee privacy rights when there is a conflict with company management regulations.

First, according to the General Principles of the Civil Law of the People’s Republic of China and the Tort Liability Law of the People’s Republic of China, the right to privacy is a personal right of citizens. It emphasizes a person’s right to control personal information, private activities, and private areas unrelated to public interests.

Employees, as natural persons, have the right to privacy. However, due to the derivative nature of the employment relationship and the special characteristics of an employee’s activity space, the employer’s right to manage inevitably limits the employee’s right to privacy to some extent. Protection of an employee’s right to privacy in the workplace must also take into account the special nature of labor relations.

While employees are entitled to the special protection provided by labor laws (you may check our previous post for more information: What are the Rights of Employee in China?) they are expected to comply with the necessary supervision and management by the employer in the workplace, as long as it does not violate their personal privacy. The employer has the right to exercise management reasonably.    

Of course, the installation of surveillance cameras by the employer in public office areas must have strict internal control regulations for the time and space scope it covers,and an important prerequisite is to provide clear and explicit notification to employees to ensure their right to be informed.

The extraction and use of content must follow certain procedures and should not violate relevant laws and regulations. This reflects the balance between the employer’s pursuit of management objectives and the protection of the employee’s right to privacy.

How Can an Employee Terminate the Employment Contract Legally?

Some foreign employees complained that their labor contracts stipulate a requirement to provide three months’ advance written notice to the employer before resigning, and that compensation is required for early termination. They inquire about the legality of this provision and seek advice on what actions to take.

According to the labor law, our analysis and recommendations are as follows:

1. Advance Notice to the Employer

Article 37 of the Labor Contract Law of the PRC clearly states that employees have the right to terminate the labor contract by giving the employer written notice thirty days in advance or three days in advance during the probationary period.

Please be noted that, if the labor contract provisions are inconsistent with the law, such provisions are deemed illegal and invalid, having no binding effect on the employee at all. As long as the employee resigns within the legally stipulated period, the employer cannot unreasonably obstruct or demand compensation.

If the employer insists on compensation from the employee, the employer must prove the existence of losses and that they are caused by the employee.

Note: Some employers stipulate in the contract that they provided training, and therefore, the employee must compensate for training costs if leaving early, actually, this is another way for the employer trying to stop the employee from leaving, as they didn’t provide any training at all.

In court hearing, the employer must provide evidence that training was actually provided.

2. Employee Entitled to Economic Compensation if Employer’s Fault Leads to Resignation

According to Article 38 of the Labor Contract Law of the People’s Republic of China, if the employer has any of the following circumstances, the employee may terminate the labor contract:    

 (1) failure to provide labor protection or working conditions as agreed in the labor contract;

(2) failure to pay labor remuneration in full and on time;

(3) failure to contribute social insurance premiums for employees in accordance with the law;

 (4) employer’s rules and regulations violate laws and regulations, damaging the rights and interests of employees;

(5) circumstances specified in Article 26, paragraph one, of this law that render the labor contract invalid;

(6) other circumstances as stipulated by laws and administrative regulations that entitle the employee to terminate the labor contract.

In accordance with Article 46 of the Labor Contract Law of the PRC, when an employee terminates the labor relationship in accordance with the aforementioned Article 38, the employer shall pay economic compensation to the employee. You may check our previous article for more information: What are the Rights of Employee in China?

3. Employee Should Handle Resignation Handover and File Transfer Promptly

According to Article 50 of the Labor Contract Law of the PRC, the employer must issue a certificate of termination or termination of the labor contract when terminating or ending the labor contract, and must complete the transfer of files and social insurance procedures for the employee within fifteen days. Meanwhile, the employee should handle work handover promptly according to the agreement between both parties.

In conclusion, for employees, if they submit their resignation within a reasonable period, perform proper work handover, the employer should cooperate in handling the resignation procedures without demanding any compensation from the employee.

New Company Law Says Contribution Shall Be Made in 5 Years

The new Company Law of the People’s Republic of China was officially reviewed and passed on December 29, 2023, and will be officially implemented on July 1, 2024.

The updated Company Law has made revisions to many important issues, and this article will focus on the important provisions of the new Law regarding the shareholders’ capital contribution obligations of limited liability company :

* Set the maximum period for the subscribed capital contribution of shareholders, normalizing the acceleration of shareholder contributions.

The revised Company Law has made certain revisions to the subscribed capital system for limited liability companies, requiring “the total amount of capital contributions subscribed by all shareholders to be fully paid within five years from the date of the company’s establishment” in accordance with the company’s articles of association. It mandates the longest period for shareholders of limited liability companies to fulfill their subscribed capital contribution, aiming to ensure reasonable expectations for the realization of creditor’s rights, reduce transaction risks, and stabilize company operations.

* Introduction of the accelerated contribution expiration system, allowing creditors to demand early contribution of the capital

The revised Company Law introduces the accelerated contribution system, stipulating that if a company cannot repay its matured debts, creditors with matured claims have the right to demand shareholders who have subscribed but have not yet reached the contribution deadline to make early payments.  

* Provide board’s responsibility to urge capital contributions and the system for shareholders losing their rights, enhancing rules for handling untrue capital contributions by shareholders

The new Company Law specifies that after the establishment of a limited liability company, the board of directors is obligated to verify the capital contributions of shareholders.

If a shareholder fails to make a timely and full contribution, the company should issue a written reminder to urge the contribution. Directors are responsible for any losses caused by the failure to fulfill this obligation shall be held liable for compensation.

If a shareholder does not fulfill the capital contribution obligation within the period specified in the company’s written reminder, the board of directors can issue a notice of loss of rights, and the shareholder loses the equity not yet contributed from the date of the notice.

The forfeited equity should be transferred according to the law, or  corresponding capital should be reduced in registered capital. If not transferred or reduced within six months, other shareholders should make the corresponding contributions in proportion to their capital contributions. Shareholders who disagree with the loss of rights can file a lawsuit within 30 days of receiving the notice of loss of rights.

Mainland & HK Mutually Recognize Civil & Commercial Judgments

On January 29, 2024, Mainland of China and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) reached a significant milestone with the implementation of an arrangement allowing mutual recognition and enforcement of civil and commercial judgments. This development marks a crucial step towards enhancing Hong Kong’s role as an international legal service and dispute resolution center.

Under the newly implemented arrangement, courts in both jurisdictions can recognize and enforce each other’s judgments in civil and commercial matters covered by the agreement. This streamlines legal procedures, reduces risks, legal costs, and time typically associated with cross-boundary enforcement of judgments.

Justice Secretary Paul Lam highlighted the unique advantages of Hong Kong under the “One Country, Two Systems” framework, emphasizing its status as the only jurisdiction with such a wide-ranging arrangement for reciprocal recognition and enforcement of judgments. Lam underscored the importance of this arrangement in consolidating Hong Kong’s position as a regional intellectual property trading hub and a center for international legal and dispute resolution services.    

The arrangement, the ninth judicial assistance document between the two jurisdictions, is the most comprehensive to date. It is expected to cover approximately 90 percent of civil and commercial judgments from both sides’ courts, according to Si Yanli, deputy director general of the research office of the Supreme People’s Court.

While the arrangement aims to expand the scope of mutual recognition, certain categories of cases remain excluded, including some family and marriage matters, inheritance cases, and certain patent infringement cases, among others. However, these cases represent only a small portion of civil and commercial cases in judicial practice.

Over the past three years, mainland courts have issued rulings for over 55,000 first-instance civil and commercial cases involving Hong Kong, demonstrating the significant facilitation of cross-border recognition and enforcement of judgments.

Addressing concerns about the arrangement’s impact on Hong Kong’s status as a global business hub, legal expert Louis Chen emphasized the solid legal foundation underpinning mutual recognition and enforcement of judgments. He clarified that mainland courts would not enforce judgments that violate fundamental principles of mainland law or public interests, and similarly, Hong Kong courts would uphold their legal principles.

Chu Kar-kin, a veteran current affairs commentator, affirmed Hong Kong’s commitment to its existing legal system under the Basic Law, ensuring judicial independence and adherence to legal principles.

In conclusion, the mutual recognition and enforcement of judgments between Mainland of China and Hong Kong signify a significant step towards enhancing legal cooperation and promoting a robust legal environment conducive to business and investment in the region.