【中英文】追索未休年假报酬是否适用一般仲裁时效？

No.1

【裁判要旨】

《中华人民共和国劳动争议调解仲裁法》第二十七条规定：“劳动争议申请仲裁的时效期间为一年。仲裁时效期间从当事人知道或者应当知道其权利被侵害之日起计算。……劳动关系存续期间因拖欠劳动报酬发生争议的，劳动者申请仲裁不受本条第一款规定的仲裁时效期间的限制；……”因未休年假工资报酬中的另外两倍报酬并非劳动者提供正常劳动应得的报酬，应属于福利待遇，因此追索未休年假报酬的主张应适用一年的仲裁时效。

No.2

【案情摘要及裁判结果】

2009年8月21日，刘某入职甲公司，任主管。双方陆续签订三份书面劳动合同，合同期限至2018年10月9日。2017年11月13日，甲公司单方提出解除劳动合同，并与刘某协商达成一致，双方解除劳动合同关系。

2018年10月25日，刘某向大连市劳动争议仲裁委员会提起劳动仲裁，主张甲公司支付2010年至2017年未休年假报酬。仲裁委以不属于劳动人事争议受理范围为由决定不予受理，刘某因不服仲裁裁决诉至法院。

一审法院判令：甲公司支付2017年未休年假报酬，驳回刘某的其他诉讼请求。刘某不服一审判决提起上诉，二审法院判令维持原判，驳回上诉。

No.3

【恒信解读】

1、支付未休年假报酬的相关法律规定。《职工带薪年休假条例》第五条第三款规定：“单位确因工作需要不能安排职工休年休假的，经职工本人同意，可以不安排职工休年休假。对职工应休未休的年休假天数，单位应当按照该职工日工资收入的300%支付年休假工资报酬”，《企业职工带薪年休假实施办法》第十条规定：“用人单位经职工同意不安排年休假或者安排职工年休假天数少于应休年休假天数，应当在本年度对职工应休未休年休假天数，按照其日工资收入的300%支付未休年休假工资报酬，其中包含用人单位支付职工正常工作期间的工资收入”。依据前述规定，针对员工未休年假报酬，因用人单位已经支付员工正常工作期间的日工资收入，单位再另行额外支付员工日工资收入的200%的报酬即可。根据《企业职工带薪年休假实施办法》第十一条的规定，未休年假报酬的日工资收入的计算公式为:本人月工资/21.75天。本人月工资是指职工在用人单位支付其未休年休假工资前12个月剔除加班工资后的月平均工资。在本用人单位工作时间不满12个月的，按实际月份计算月平均工资。

2、追索未休年假报酬适用一般仲裁时效。根据《劳动争议调解仲裁法》第二十七条规定，仲裁时效可分为一般仲裁时效和特殊仲裁时效。一般仲裁时效期间为“一年”，特殊仲裁时效为“劳动关系存续期间因拖欠劳动报酬发生争议的，劳动者申请仲裁不受本条第一款规定的仲裁时效期间的限制（但劳动关系终止的，应自劳动关系终止之日起一年内提出）”。因此，本案的争议焦点为未休年假报酬是否属于“工资”。如属于，则不适用一年的仲裁时效限制，适用特殊时效；否则，将适用一年的仲裁时效制度。关于具体何为“工资”，《关于工资总额组成的规定》第四条规定：“工资总额由下列六个部分组成：（一）计时工资；（二）计件工资；（三）奖金；（四）津贴和补贴；（五）加班加点工资；（六）特殊情况下支付的工资”。根据前述规定，未休年假报酬是否属于“工资”，司法实践有不同的理解。近年来，大连地区的司法实务在一定程度上形成共识，认为未休年假工资报酬中的另外两倍报酬并非劳动者提供正常劳动应得的报酬，应属于福利待遇，应当适用一年的仲裁时效。具体到本案中，刘某主张2010年至2017年带薪年休假工资。其中，2016年的未休年假工资最迟应在2017年12月31日申请劳动仲裁，但刘某于2018年10月25日才申请劳动仲裁主张2010年至2017年未休年假工资，所以2010年至2016年的未休年假工资已经超过法定的一年仲裁时效期间，而且刘某也没有提出仲裁时效中止、中断的证据，因此，法院仅支持了2017年的未休年假工资。

No.4

【案例索引】

一审：（2018）辽0204民初7679号民事判决

二审：（2019）辽02民终6692号民事判决

Does the time limitation of arbitration apply to salary of the unused annual vacation?

[Gist of the Verdict]

Article 27 of “the People’s Republic of China Labor Dispute Mediation and Arbitration Law”: the time limitation period for application for arbitration of a labor dispute shall be one year. The time limitation period for arbitration shall be counted as of the date when a party knows or should know that its right has been violated. --- During the existence of the labor relations, a dispute arises over the default in payment of labor remuneration, application for arbitration by the worker concerned shall not be restricted by the limitation period for arbitration prescribed in the first paragraph of this Article.

The twofold salary of unused vacation is not the remuneration that the laborer should have earned for provision of normal labor, but belongs to welfare and shall be governed by one-year limitation of arbitration.

[Introduction and Verdict]

Mr. Liu joined Company A as the Chief Supervisor on 21st August 2009. Both parties have then executed three labor contracts in writing and the contract term was until 9th Oct. 2015. On 13th Nov. 2017, Company A requested to dissolve the labor contract, and then discussed and agreed with Mr. Liu to dissolve their labor contract.

On 25th Oct. 2018, Mr. Liu submitted the labor dispute to Dalian Labor Dispute Arbitration Committee, requesting Company A to pay the salary of unused annual vacation from 2010 to 2017 The Arbitration Committee didn’t accept the dispute by the reason that it didn’t fall into its scope of jurisdiction. Mr. Liu didn’t accept the award and filed a lawsuit with the court. .

The first instance court issued the verdict that Company A shall pay the salary of unused annual vacation for the year of 2017 and dismissed other claims of Mr. Liu. Mr. Liu appealed and the second instance court affirmed the original verdict and dismissed the appeal.

[Interpretation of Hengxin Lawyer]

1. Applicable laws and rules with regards to payment of salary for unused annual vacation. In accordance with 5.3 of “If the unit does not arrange for the annual leave of staff due to the needs of the job, it may not arrange for the workers’ annual leave without the consent of the employees themselves. For employees whose annual vacation days should not be taken off, the unit shall pay annual wages and salary in accordance with 300% of the daily wage income of the staff and workers. In accordance with 10 of “Implementation Measures for Paid Annual Leave for Employees of Enterprises”-Article 10: Where an employer does not give annual leave to an employee or gives him days of annual leave less than the days of annual leave due upon the consent of the employee, it shall pay the employee 300% of his daily wage income for each day of the annual leave due and not taken in the year, which includes the wage income to be paid by the employer to the employee per day in normal working days. In accordance with above rules, the employer needs only to pay an additional 200% of the daily wage income to an employee since the employer has already paid the daily wage income during normal working days. In accordance with 11 of “Implementation Measures for Paid Annual Leave for Employees of Enterprises”, the formula for calculating the daily wage income of an employee which is used for calculating the payment for his annual leave time due but not taken shall be dividing the monthly wage income of the employee into the working days (21.75 days). The monthly wage income mentioned in the preceding paragraph refers to the average monthly wage for 12 months, which deducted the overtime pay, before the employer pay to the employees the wage income of the annual leave not taken. If the working days of employees are less than 12 months for their employer, the monthly wage income mentioned in the preceding paragraph refers to the average monthly wage in accordance with the actual working days.

2. Application of the time limitation of arbitration to the salary of unused annual vacation. In accordance with Article 27 of “the People’s Republic of China Labor Dispute Mediation and Arbitration Law”, the time limitation period for arbitration is divided to general and special time limitations. The general time limitation period for arbitration shall be one year. The special time limitation for arbitration is that “During the existence of the labor relations, a dispute arises over the default in payment of labor remuneration, application for arbitration by the worker concerned shall not be restricted by the limitation period for arbitration prescribed in the first paragraph of this Article. However, where the labor relations are terminated, such application for arbitration shall be submitted within one year from the date the labor relations are terminated. Hence, the focus of dispute in this case is whether the payment for unused annual leave belongs to “salary” or not. If the answer is yes, the one-year time limitation doesn’t apply, but the special time limitation shall apply. Otherwise, it will be subject to one-year time limitation. In accordance with Article 4 of “Rules about Composition of Total Salary”, total salary is made up of six parts: 1. hourly salary, 2. piece salary, 3. bonus，4. subsidy and allowance, 5. overtime salary, 6. salary paid under special conditions. In accordance with above rules, there are different understandings on the salary for whether the payment for unused annual leave belongs to “salary” or not in judicial practice. In recent years, it has reached a consensus in Dalian that the additional twofold payment for the unused annual leave is not the remuneration that an employee shall get from provision of normal labor, but belongs to welfare, and thus is subject to one year time limitation. In this case, Mr. Liu claimed for the salary of annual paid leave from 2010 to 2017. The laborer shall apply for arbitration for the salary of unused annual vacation for the year of 2016 no later than 31st Dec. 2017. However, Mr. Liu delayed the claim for the salary for the annual paid vacation from 2010 to 2017 until 25th Oct. 2018. The claim for the annual paid vacation from 2010 to 2016 has exceeded the statutory time limitation of the arbitration. Moreover, Mr. Liu didn’t present any evidence for suspension or interruption of the time limitation of arbitration. Thus, the court supported only the salary for the unused annual vacation in the year of 2017.

[Case Index]

First instance: (2018) Liao 0204 MC No. 7679 Civil Verdict

Second instance: (2019) Liao 02 MZ No. 6692 Civil Verdict