What's wrong with this lawyer?!

One category consists of three projects that have already been approved. The issue here is that the approval only bears the signature of the legal representative. According to City Development Company's opinion, the approval process must have multiple leaders' signatures and be passed by the board of directors.

Additionally, the official seal of City Development Company was not affixed.

So, this approval itself is incomplete.

Furthermore, the meeting minutes from the Investment and Development Department did not receive company consent; the court ruling also stated that City Development Company did not recognize this allocation plan.

Therefore, the court determined that for the three projects with the legal representative's signature, Su Yeping's claim to fifty percent of the Investment and Development Department's bonus lacked sufficient evidence and was not supported.

As for the other three projects, Su Yeping provided no evidence that he had submitted an application, and the company had not conducted an approval, so this claim was also not supported.

Moreover, the company raised another point that the bonuses given are a percentage of the "expected profit."

Now, two projects have already incurred significant losses, so the bonuses for all six projects should not be disbursed.

In summary, the court directly dismissed all appeals.

After Tang Fangjing thoroughly reviewed the judgment, this case wasn't a major case in the strictest sense, but it indeed involved a lot of bickering.

After carefully reading through the initial documents issued by City Development Company, Tang Fangjing finally lifted his head.

"Do you have any new evidence during the second trial?"

On the opposite side, Su Yeping shook his head and said, "Now I only have this evidence."

Tang Fangjing pondered for a moment and said, "You've read the judgment too. Now there are several core points of contention: First, whether the complete approval process must be completed before a bonus can be given."

"Second, whether the meeting minutes formed due to the allocation plan within the department must be approved by the company to be effective."

"Third, whether the approval or non-approval is entirely up to the company."

"Fourth, whether the disbursement of bonuses is directly related to the project losses!"

"I'll take this case; go back and wait—I am very interested in this case."

Upon hearing this, Su Yeping beamed with joy and quickly said, "Really? Thank you so much, Lawyer Tang."

He came today just to give it a try, and unexpectedly, he actually managed to engage Tang Fangjing!

It's important to note that it's been a long time since anyone has managed to impress Tang in a live consultation!

Most of the time, he would directly give you some advice and methods, and then move on to the next person.

After endless thanks, Wang Qingqing took Su Yeping to sign the contract and pay. This case requires the standard fees.

Bonuses, in essence, are still considered remuneration, so before reaching the second trial, Su Yeping had gone through arbitration and the first trial, only to lose in both instances.

As he watched Su Yeping leave, Tang Fangjing started to carefully consider the case approach. Theoretically speaking, the first trial court's judgment did not seem problematic.

However, upon closer inspection, a significant issue becomes apparent!

If the employer can refuse to disburse bonuses on the grounds of "the incomplete process," it means that as long as the employer wishes, employees can essentially never receive their bonuses.

Why? This involves two concepts: procedural approval and substantive approval.

These two concepts are quite simple. Procedural approval is the usual process flow we see, requiring signatures from certain leaders, etc. These are procedural approvals.

What is substantive approval? It specifically examines whether the project completed by the employee meets the previously published bonus standards—that is the actual work done.

In life, these two audits are generally confused, and we don't pay much attention to distinguishing them.

But legally, this must be clearly distinguished.

Procedural approval cannot become a reason to obstruct the employee's substantive rights, meaning the employer can't use the process to evade bonus disbursement.

If your process takes three years, does that mean I have to wait three years with you? Even a legal novice can think of that as being extremely unreasonable.

This is Tang Fangjing's answer to the first contention and is the reason prepared for rebuttal.

Someone will definitely ask, what if the employer does not conduct substantive approval?

In response, Tang Fangjing's view is that substantive approval by the employer is not only a right but also an obligation!

He will still use the most common and widely misunderstood relationship of rights and obligations to counter.

This is often overlooked in life but is particularly useful in court.

Although you are the employer and have a leading role in the labor process and it is up to you to review whether bonuses meet the standards, this does not mean you can choose not to review.

Rights and obligations are relative. Not only do you have the right to review, but when an employee strives to meet your standards, you also have the obligation to review.

If you deliberately choose not to review, you must provide a reason. If there is no reason, you should bear the responsibility for the inability to provide evidence, and the court should rule the bonuses be disbursed.

Although employees must follow the management of employers, their status in civil legal relations is equal, and compliance is with labor management!

It doesn't mean that as an employee, the employer has total control over my life. No such thing.

Perhaps people in real life have to listen to others due to livelihood, but in court, you must argue rationally. This is Tang Fangjing's answer to the third contention.