Units Need To Inform Employees Of Social Security Payment Details.

Xiaohua worked in a company in April 2014, with a monthly salary of 6000 yuan. The unit also recorded the amount of social insurance premiums the individual should pay in accordance with 6000 yuan in Xiaohua's wages. In December 2014, Xiaohua conducted a social security enquiry and found that the unit paid social security only at a social security payment base of 3022 yuan. Xiaohua immediately found the unit. Human resources The ministry asked the unit to pay the details of its social security, but the unit refused to provide it.

Comment: in fact, Xiao Hua can carry out the labor security supervision team to the locality. Complaint And require processing. The labor and social security supervision department has the right to deal with the employer's refusal to inform the social security payment.

1. Social insurance law "Article sixtieth provides that the employing unit shall declare itself, pay social insurance premiums on time and in full, and shall not be suspended or reduced without legal reasons such as force majeure. The social insurance premiums payable by the workers and staff members shall be withheld and paid by the employing units. The employer shall inform the person himself of the details of the payment of social insurance premiums on a monthly basis.

2. The twenty-fourth provision of the implementation of the "social insurance law of the People's Republic of China" stipulates that employers should inform the employees themselves of their social insurance premiums without monthly payment, and that the social insurance administrative departments shall order them to correct them. If the employer fails to change the overdue period, it shall be dealt with in accordance with the thirtieth provision of the labor security supervision regulations.

Related links:

In January 2015, the staff member of 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 3500 yuan a month to him, but did not pay overtime wages of 1500 yuan. Chu asked a garment factory to pay the salary 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 transaction 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 trial, in the absence of the respondent, how to identify the applicant's statement and the evidence provided becomes 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 article makes a principled stipulation on the identification of evidence, that is, "judges should examine evidence in a comprehensive and objective way in accordance with the legal procedures, abide by the judges' professional ethics according to the law, and use logical reasoning and daily life experience to independently judge the evidence's ability of proof and proof, and publicly judge the reasons and results." 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 ninth provision of the Supreme People's Court on the interpretation of several issues concerning the application of the law in labor dispute cases (three), the workers who claim overtime pay should 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.