According to public information, Feifei company was founded in 1981. It is a production and operation enterprise mainly engaged in construction and construction. It has 12 branches, providing more than 3500 jobs annually. In 2018, flying company also ranked 22nd in the top 50 tax paying list of Gansu Private Enterprises with a total tax amount of RMB 50.07 million.
Mr. Ma used to be the manager of the first branch of Feifei company. He claimed that the first branch and the flying company should be independent of each other. There was no property right relationship. He only paid the management fee to the flying company according to a certain proportion of the output value. As the leader of a branch company, he has undertaken more than 100 projects over the past 10 years, developed real estate projects by himself, and achieved profits of hundreds of millions of yuan for the company. However, the company removed him from office in May 2012, which violated his right to profit distribution.
In June 2012, Mr. Ma sued Feifei company to the court on the ground of being infringed by the company. He claimed more than 52 million yuan of profits, which included 33% of the profits of foreign construction projects and 50% of the profits of independent development projects. However, his appeal was rejected by Gansu High Court and Supreme Peoples court.
The Supreme Peoples Court of the peoples Republic of China in December 2013 said that from the form of profit distribution of a branch over the years, it was distributed in the form of welfare, bonus and other forms. At the same time, it needs the approval of the board of directors of Feifei Construction Industry Co., Ltd. because Mr. Ma was removed from office in May 2012, his lawsuit seeks to obtain more than 52 million yuan of residual profit, which has no factual basis and legal basis and is not supported.
After the Supreme Court rejected the petition, Mr. Ma turned to apply for labor arbitration. However, the labor arbitration commission of Suzhou District, Jiuquan City, failed to hear Mr. Mas request for a bonus of more than 52 million yuan, citing the Gansu High Court and the Supreme Court as the final judgment. In May 2014, the arbitration commission only ruled that the flying company should pay Mr. Mas living expenses according to the minimum wage standard and make up for the social security.
In July 2014, Mr. Ma sued Feifei company to Suzhou District Court of Jiuquan City on the grounds of labor dispute, and appealed to Feifei company to pay more than 52 million yuan of corresponding wages and bonus.
In November 2017, the first instance of Suzhou District Court ruled that Feifei company paid Mr. Ma more than 30000 yuan of wages in arrears, paid more than 30000 yuan of living expenses according to the local minimum wage standard, paid more than 1.13 million yuan of construction project bonus, and paid more than 51.72 million yuan of independent research and development project bonus, totaling more than 52 million yuan. Suzhou District Court held that the incentive measures formulated by Feifei company should be used as the basis for the after tax profit distribution of the enterprise.
However, Feifei company refused to accept the judgment of the first instance, and then appealed to the Jiuquan City Intermediate Peoples court, requesting to change the judgment according to law and refute all Mr. Mas claims. Feifei company believes that the relevant laws do not have mandatory provisions to judge the payment of bonus, nor do they support the expected loss of profits. The company has the right to decide the bonus system and distribution mode. The first instance judgment violates the companys operational autonomy.
In November 2018, the Jiuquan City Intermediate Peoples court made a second instance judgment, rejected the appeal request of the flying company, and corrected part of the bonus amount, but still judged the flying company to pay Mr. Ma more than 52 million yuan.
The case has been remanded for retrial
China Times reporter learned that after the second trial decision made by the Jiuquan City Intermediate Court, flying company applied to the court for retrial. In June 2019, the Gansu High Court ruled that the case should be brought up for trial, and the execution of the original judgment should be suspended during the retrial.
However, when the Gansu High Court made a trial, the case had already gone through the enforcement procedure. Feifei company fulfilled the judgment of the second instance of Jiuquan City Intermediate Court and paid Mr. Ma more than 52 million yuan.
In August 2020, after retrial, Gansu High Court held that the basic facts of the case were not clear and the main evidence was insufficient, and ordered to cancel the previous judgments of first and second instance and remand to Suzhou District Court for retrial.
It is worth noting that in the previous first instance procedure, the Suzhou District Court entrusted Jiuquan Zhongrui engineering cost affairs Co., Ltd. to evaluate and appraise the after tax profits of the first branch of the flying company from 1998 to 2014, and the relevant appraisal certificate has also become the basis for the court of first and second instance to support Mr. Mas claim. However, in the ruling, the Gansu High Court held that the relevant appraisal opinions did not have legal effect because the entrusted appraisal items exceeded the business scope of the appraisal institution in the case.
The opening time of the court has not yet been decided
On December 2, the reporter of China Times contacted both the flying company and Mr. Ma, and learned that after the case was sent back to the Suzhou District Court in August this year, the Suzhou District Court has not yet made clear the time for the trial.
In an interview with reporters, Mr. Ma stressed that it was a mess when he took over the branch. He worked hard for many years to develop the company. He paid him more than 52 million yuan as his due bonus. The company has relevant reward regulations. He also said he believed that the court would still make a fair judgment after being remanded for retrial.
Mr. Tian, the person in charge of the flying company, told reporters that more than 50 million yuan was a huge sum of money for the company in the underdeveloped areas. After the case entered the enforcement procedure, the flying company paid Mr. Ma with a bank loan of 30 million yuan and a private loan of 20 million yuan. The annual interest of these loans was as high as 67 million yuan, and the litigation for several years had already caused the companys operation Significant adverse effects. Mr. Tian said he hoped that the court could promote the trial procedure as soon as possible and make a fair judgment. Hong Guibin, an expert in company law and labor law, and lawyer Hong Guibin of Shanghai Huiye law firm, pointed out in an interview with China times that in labor disputes, it is not uncommon for workers to claim tens of millions or even hundreds of millions of compensation, but few can obtain huge compensation. This case is the case in which the employers amount is the highest among the labor disputes he knows. Hong Guibin said that Mr. Ma in the case has multiple identities, such as shareholder, operator and laborer. There are many doubts about whether the labor relationship or cooperative relationship between Mr. Ma and the company, whether the huge bonus dispute involved is profit distribution or labor remuneration nature, whether the company law or labor law is applicable, and whether the effective judgment of the Supreme Court will lead to repeated prosecution Pending the final outcome of the case. Source: China Times editor in charge: Chen Hequn_ NB12679
Mr. Tian, the person in charge of the flying company, told reporters that more than 50 million yuan was a huge sum of money for the company in the underdeveloped areas. After the case entered the enforcement procedure, the flying company paid Mr. Ma with a bank loan of 30 million yuan and a private loan of 20 million yuan. The annual interest of these loans was as high as 67 million yuan, and the litigation for several years had already caused the companys operation Significant adverse effects. Mr. Tian said he hoped that the court could promote the trial procedure as soon as possible and make a fair judgment.
Hong Guibin, an expert in company law and labor law, and lawyer Hong Guibin of Shanghai Huiye law firm, pointed out in an interview with China times that in labor disputes, it is not uncommon for workers to claim tens of millions or even hundreds of millions of compensation, but few can obtain huge compensation. This case is the case in which the employers amount is the highest among the labor disputes he knows.