On the morning of September 9th, 2022, Amy sent an email to her supervisor stating that she could no longer continue working for the company due to personal reasons and requested to resign with her last day being October 31st, 2022.
Her supervisor agreed to her resignation later that afternoon and confirmed that her last day of work would indeed be on October 31st, 2022.
On October 15th, Amy discovered she was pregnant and sent an email to her supervisor the next day, stating that she wanted to withdraw her resignation request and continue working for the company due to her pregnancy.
On October 18th, the company’s HR Manager replied to Amy, informing her that the company had already agreed to her resignation request, and the resignation process had already begun. In addition, due to Amy’s resignation, the company had to rearrange its business operations. Therefore, the company could not accept her request to retract her resignation.
Unhappy with the company’s response, Amy filed for labor arbitration, claiming that the company had illegally terminated her employment and demanding that her employment be restored. However, the labor arbitration commission rejected all of Amy’s arbitration requests.
Obviously, Amy was dissatisfied with the decision, she filed a lawsuit, arguing that the company’s actions had harmed her legal rights, preventing her from claiming reimbursement for maternity medical expenses, maternity allowances, and maternity pay.
After hearing the case, the court of first instance found that the dispute in question was whether the company had illegally terminated the employment contract with Amy.
A. On whether the act of Amy withdrawing her resignation request was legally effective:
The court found that when Amy submitted her resignation request, the company had replied and agreed to her resignation. Therefore, the two parties had reached a mutual agreement regarding Amy’s resignation, and the process did not involve fraud, coercion, or any action that took advantage of Amy’s situation.
Additionally, Amy’s resignation request did not fall under the category of significant misunderstandings, and she had made her statement as a person with full legal capacity, so her actions were not legally revocable. Therefore, the court ruled that the actions of both parties were genuine and valid, and they must be fulfilled accordingly.
B. On the question whether or not the company had illegally terminated Amy’s employment contract:
Although the law generally stipulates that companies may not terminate employment contracts with female employees during their pregnancy (for more related information, please check our previous post: Female employee rights in China), it does not prohibit the termination of the employment contract if both parties reach an agreement. Moreover, in this case, it was Amy who had proposed to resign.
In summary, the court of first instance ruled that when Amy applied for resignation, she was not aware of her pregnancy and did not fall into the category of major misunderstanding and rejected all of Amy’s claims.
Amy appealed, claiming that as a pregnant woman, she is entitled to special legal protection; she has the right to decide to continue performing the employment contract; and the company has no right to refuse.
After the trial, the court of second instance supported the judgment of the court of first instance. They believed that relevant laws and regulations stipulate that the employer may not terminate the employment contract of female employees during pregnancy, but the law does not stipulate that the employer cannot terminate the labor contract after the female employee proposes to terminate the labor contract.
In this case, Amy proposed to terminate the labor contract to the company, and the company also agreed, thus the intention of Amy to terminate the labor contract has legal effect. Even though Amy later discovered her pregnancy, it cannot change the fact that both parties have agreed to terminate the labor contract through negotiation, so Amy’s claim has no legal basis and is not supported by the court.
Therefore, the court of second instance rejected the appeal and upheld the original judgment.
Related provisions:
Article 36 of Labor Contract Law of the PRC :
“An employer and a worker may discharge the labor contract upon unanimity through consultation.”
Article 147 of Civil Code of the PRC :
“For a civil juristic act that is performed based on a substantial misunderstanding, the person performing such act has the right to request a people’s court or an arbitral institution to revoke such act.”
Useful link:
Ministry of Human Resources and Social Security of the People’s Republic of China
