A former employee maliciously blackmailed the company; the lawyer's eloquent defense reduced the hefty compensation.

In July 2013, accountant Liu Mou joined Zhejiang Pengzhou Construction Company in an administrative position. Due to management oversight, Pengzhou Company failed to sign a labor contract with Liu or purchase social insurance for him. Liu not only knew of this but deliberately concealed it, quietly collecting evidence unfavorable to the company. During this period, Liu fell seriously ill and required medical treatment, and Pengzhou Company provided necessary financial support to help him through the hardship. By February 2014, both parties terminated their labor relationship and reached an agreement on compensation and handover matters. However, a few days later, Liu applied for labor arbitration with the district labor arbitration committee, demanding that Pengzhou Company pay him various fees including "double wage difference for failure to sign a labor contract," "overtime pay for public holidays and national holidays," "insufficient wages," "economic compensation for illegal termination of labor contract," "medical compensation," "one-time unemployment insurance," "economic compensation for wage arrears," and "attorney fees," totaling a certain amount. Pengzhou Company decided to entrust the Zhiming lawyer team from Guangdong Zhiming Law Firm to represent the arbitration case. Team lawyer Zhang Qingping and trainee lawyer Ye Huijuan were responsible for following up on the case.

After collecting all the job-related materials for Liu, Attorney Zhang Qingping concluded that Pengzhou Company's internal management was chaotic, with a large number of employee onboarding and termination documents being incomplete. However, Attorney Zhang Qingping believed that many of Liu's claims were unreasonable and unlawful, and could be contested. First, Liu had miscalculated the amounts for "double wages for failure to sign a labor contract," "economic compensation for unlawful termination of the labor contract," and "attorney fees," exceeding the actual payable amount by more than three times. Second, regarding the claims for "overtime pay for public holidays and national holidays" and "insufficient wages," based on the collected "Management Staff Attendance Records" and "Liu's Wage Sheet and Other Documents for January-February 2014," it could be calculated that the company had already fully paid Liu's overtime pay and wages. Furthermore, the claim for "one-time unemployment insurance benefits" was not a matter to be handled under labor dispute resolution, and the claim for "economic compensation for wage arrears" lacked any legal basis whatsoever; both were not recognized. Finally, regarding the claim for "medical compensation," although Liu provided hospital fee receipts, since it was impossible to distinguish which of those expenses fell under the reimbursement scope of the "basic medical insurance treatment standards," the company was not obligated to bear the aforementioned expenses.

During the subsequent arbitration hearing, Attorney Zhang Qingping successfully persuaded the arbitral tribunal based on the findings of the above research and analysis. In the end, the tribunal rendered an award that significantly reduced Pengzhou Company's liability share from the total amount of 145,000 yuan claimed by Liu to merely 43,000 yuan, thereby safeguarding Pengzhou Company's legitimate interests to the greatest extent possible and preventing the unscrupulous individual's improper intentions from being fully realized.