Personnel work is the first gateway to enterprise employment compliance, which is directly related to the standardization of employment management. However, in practice, many enterprises have fallen into the misunderstanding of "empiricism", especially in small, medium and micro enterprises, where personnel are mostly responsible for veteran employees or experienced personnel.

A large number of labor dispute cases show that most enterprises are not involved in disputes because of intentional violations, but due to personnel "experience" operations and neglect of compliance details. Experience can be used as a reference to improve efficiency, but it must not replace legal norms and institutional processes. At present, labor laws are becoming more and more perfect, employees' awareness of rights protection is improving, and experience-based operations seem to be efficient, but in fact they bury many hidden dangers.

Hidden danger 1: Recruitment and entry rely on experience, and the labor relationship is unclear

Many personnel confuse labor relations with labor relations based on experience, believing that "pay-per-piece remuneration and bringing your own tools are not considered labor relations" and "verbal agreements are sufficient".

Typical case: Failure to avoid work-related injury liability based on piece-based remuneration

A logistics and distribution company's express delivery post is paid on a piece-by-piece basis, and employees bring their own tools, without signing a contract or paying social security. Li fell and injured himself on the fifth day of his employment, and filed a lawsuit after claiming work-related injury benefits were rejected. The court found that Li was engaged in the company's core business, was managed by the company and received a monthly salary, and the two parties constituted a de facto labor relationship, and ruled that the company should pay work-related injury benefits and double the salary difference of the unsigned contract, with a cumulative loss of more than 80,000 yuan.

Core hidden dangers

• Personnel misunderstood the criteria for determining labor relations, mistakenly equated "remuneration per piece" with labor relations, and ignored the core elements of de facto labor relations
• It is mistakenly believed that an oral agreement can replace a written contract, violating the mandatory provisions of the Labor Contract Law

Hidden danger 2: The management of the probationary period depends on experience, and compensation is required for illegal dismissal

Many personnel believe based on experience that "employees can be dismissed at will during the probationary period", do not clarify the employment conditions, do not formulate assessment standards, fail to perform legal procedures such as training and transfer, and arbitrarily terminate the contract on the grounds of "not meeting the employment conditions", which can easily constitute illegal termination.

Typical case: Subjective judgment that dismissal constitutes a violation of the law

A technology company stipulates that employees who do not meet the requirements during the probationary period can be directly dismissed. Yang entered the sales position, and the personnel did not inform the employment conditions in writing, did not formulate assessment standards, and dismissed Yang as "incompetent" based only on subjective judgment before the expiration of the probationary period. The arbitration commission found that it was illegal to terminate the case and ordered the company to pay compensation.

Core hidden dangers

There are clear legal requirements for probationary termination:

• Enterprises need to inform the employment conditions in writing
• Prove that the employee does not meet the requirements
• Perform training and transfer procedures

If personnel ignore these requirements based on experience, arbitrary termination will not only pay compensation, but also affect the employer's image.

Hidden danger 3: Social security work-related injury operation relies on experience, and disputes occur frequently

Many personnel believe based on experience that "employees voluntarily give up social security, and enterprises can be exempt from payment", which is in violation of the law and extremely risky.

Typical case: The abandonment of social security commitment is invalid, and the enterprise bears the late fee

When employee Ah Yi joined the company, he submitted the "Voluntary Renunciation of Purchase of Social Security Commitment", and the company did not pay social security for him. Five years later, he was dismissed, and Ah Yi complained about making up the payment. The company paid a total of more than 80,000 yuan in social security and late fees, and later sued Ah Yi to bear all the late fees. The court found that social security was a legal obligation of the enterprise, and the waiver of the promise was invalid, and both parties were at fault, and the company was sentenced to bear 67.87% of the late fee.

Core hidden dangers

Social security is a legal obligation of enterprises, even if employees voluntarily give up, the relevant agreements are invalid, and enterprises still need to bear the responsibilities of supplementary payment, compensation, and late payment fees. Empirical operations can either lead to loss or increase management costs.

Hidden danger 4: Non-compete relies on experience, and the clause is invalid

Many personnel draft terms based on experience, ignoring the effective conditions and scope of application of the law, resulting in invalid provisions and failure of agreements.

Typical case: An ordinary security guard was agreed to a non-compete agreement, and the clause was invalid

A security company believed that all employees could agree on non-compete restrictions, and did not distinguish whether the position was exposed to trade secrets. Li worked as an ordinary security guard, and the contract had a non-compete clause, stipulating that he would not be allowed to join his peers after resigning, and the liquidated damages were 200,000 yuan. After Li resigned, he joined another security company, and the company's application for arbitration was rejected, and the arbitration commission found that Li did not contact trade secrets and the clause was invalid.

Core hidden dangers

Non-compete restrictions only target employees in specific positions who are exposed to trade secrets, and blindly expand the scope of application, and the clause will be invalid due to illegal activities.

Epilogue

The above real cases show that personnel experience-based operational mistakes will cause enterprises to face multiple losses. At the heart of HR work is "compliance" rather than "experience". Past experience adapts to the past legal and employment environment, and it is difficult to cope with the current complex employment scenario.

Three suggestions for enterprises to avoid hidden dangers

1. Strengthen legal training: Enhance the compliance awareness and professional ability of personnel personnel, and eliminate "experience-based" operations
2. Improve the management system: solidify the operation process and legal requirements of each link, so that personnel work can be followed
3. Introduce professional support: When necessary, hire professional labor law lawyers to conduct process compliance reviews and hidden danger investigations to prevent risks in advance