Amy joined a company （“Company”）on 7 April 2017 as an Administration Assistant. Amy declared “No” in the marital status section of the <New Employee’s Entry Form > and promised in the form that “The content in the form is true and correct. If there is anything untrue, I promise to terminate the labor relationship with the company, accept the company’s disposal, and shall not requi re any financial compensation”.
However, on 14 May 2017, the Company terminated its labor relationship with Amy on the grounds that the “marital status” in the <New Employee’s Entry Form > submitted by Amy was inconsistent with the facts. Which is a serious violation of the relevant laws and regulations and the stipulation regarding the authenticity of personal information in the <New Employee’s Entry Form>.
Amy admitted that she had applied for the registration of her marriage on 28 September 2015, however she thought she would be officially married only after the wedding ceremony was held, which still didn’t happen yet. In addition, she believed that her marital status was personal information, she was not obliged to reveal to the company.
On 15 June 2017, Amy applied for a labor arbitration, requiring the company to pay compensation for firing her. However, the Arbitration Commission ruled against Amy’s request.
Amy appealed against the arbitral award and filed a case with the court.
The court of first instance held that the company should pay compensation for terminating the labor contract in violation of the law.
The company claimed that: “Providing false personal information while joining the company is in violation of the principle of good faith, hence it is not against the law for the company to fire such employees.” The company appealed.
Amy defended her action by stating: “The company should not treat married women differently when hiring employees”
After the court hearing, the appellate court held that: Article 8 of the <Labor Contract Law of the People’s Republic of China> stipulates that: “the company shall have the right to know the basic situation directly related to the labor contract, and the employee shall make a truthful statement.” Based on the above-mentioned provisions, the employee’s obligation to inform is conditional. The employee has the obligation to truthfully reply only when the company requires basic information which is directly related to the labor contract.
Generally speaking, the basic information directly related to the labor contract includes the health status, knowledge and skills, education level, job skills, work experience, professional qualifications, etc. An employee’s failure to explain this information truthfully may constitute not only a major misunderstanding but rather fraud, or an infringement of the company’s right to know. However, the company can’t infringe the privacy of employees for the purpose to acquire this basic information. For information which is not directly related to the work and if divulged infringes the privacy of individuals, employees have the right to refuse an answer or explain the situation further. For information that is not directly related to the labor contract, no element of fraud is given even if the employee has not replied truthfully.
An employer’s provision, such as “if there is any false statement, employee is willing to accept the company’s punishment or even dismissal unconditionally”, should be construed as follows: if employees fail to provide their basic information which is directly related to the labor contract, such as health status, education, professional, work experience, educational background, etc. untruthfully, the company may terminate the labor contract.
For information that does not relate to the labor contract directly, such as height, weight, marital status, blood type etc, even if the employee made a false statement, the employer can’t use this as a reason to terminate the labor contract, unless the company has made this a clear requirement during the recruitment process.
In this case, the company failed to prove that it had a clear requirement with regards to Amy’s marital status at the time of recruitment. In fact, as Amy’s position is an administration assistant, the marital status is not a factor affecting her ability to work, nor is it a necessary condition for Amy to engage in such a job. In addition, the company did not provide any of its rules and regulations to prove that Amy concealing the fact of her marriage is a serious violation of the company’s internal regulations.
Therefore, the company’s behavior of firing Amy on the basis that Amy’s statement of her “marital status” does not match the facts is not in line with the law. As a consequence, the company should pay Amy compensation for it’s illegal termination of the labor contract.
The appellate court therefore rejected the company’s appeal and upheld the original judgment.
Useful links:
Ministry of Justice of the People’s Republic of China
