How Does The Employer Refuse To Appear In Court To Determine The Evidence Effect Of The Employee?

In January 2015, a worker in Chu applied for labor arbitration. He said he entered a garment factory in July 2014 to engage in garment processing. The two parties did not sign a written labor contract, and the garment factory paid them monthly.

3500 yuan, but did not pay overtime wages 1500 yuan, Chu asked a garment factory to pay the double wage difference between August 2014 and December for 25000 yuan and overtime pay 9000 yuan.

Chu provided his own name work clothes, work cards, his own overtime diary, bank paction flow sheet and so on as evidence.

After receiving the notice, the garment factory did not appear in court, nor did it provide any defence and evidence.

In the court hearing, when the respondent was absent,

How to identify and provide evidence is the focus of this case.

The forty-seventh provision of the Supreme People's Court on the evidence of civil litigation stipulates: "evidence should be presented in court and cross examined by the parties.

Evidence without cross examination can not be used as a basis for determining the facts of a case. "

However, there is no provision for the operability of evidence identification under the system of default trial.

However, the sixty-fourth articles have made a principled provision for the identification of the evidence, namely, "the judge should follow the legal procedure, examine the evidence comprehensively and objectively, abide by the professional ethics of the judge according to the law, use logical reasoning and daily life experience, judge whether the evidence has no proof and the size of proof independently, and the reasons and results of the public judgment."

In summary, the author believes that in the absence of units, arbitrators should rationally judge the choice of evidence and the power of proof on the basis of upholding the principle of neutrality and form a conviction, that is, a substantive review of evidence, so as to determine the facts of a case and make a judgment.

In this case, the clothes and work cards provided by Chu have the name of the clothing factory. The seal of the garment factory has the seal on the work card, which proves that she has a labor relationship with the garment factory. Therefore, Chu's request for double pay should be supported.

According to the Supreme People's court's trial fee, the overtime payment requested by Chu

The interpretation of certain issues in the application of the law (three) "clause ninth" stipulates that the workers who claim overtime pay shall bear the burden of proof on the fact of overtime.

However, the workers have evidence to prove that the employer is in possession of the evidence of overtime facts, and the employer does not provide the employer with adverse consequences.

Chu Mou did not provide the clothing factory with the relevant evidence of the fact of overtime work. Therefore, he should bear the burden of proof on the fact of overtime work, but Chu himself had only his own statement and his own work diary, which did not prove the effect. Therefore, Chu's request for overtime payment should not be supported.

Finally, the arbitral tribunal ruled that the garment factory paid a 17500 yuan wage difference for Chu and dismissed her other arbitration requests.