[6] Disguised dismissal after opposing the company; lawyer's rights protection ultimately secured economic compensation

In 2002, Zhu, who had been transferred from the military, took up a position as an engineer at a motor control development company in Shenzhen run by a fellow veteran. However, by 2013, after the control of the veteran's company was stripped away by others, the new controller began selling off equipment and transferring assets, which the upright Zhu could not tolerate. Due to friction with the new controller, Zhu frequently faced suppression and retaliation: first, his paid annual leave wages were deducted, then his salary began to be docked, and subsequently, his pay was blatantly reduced to 2,000 yuan. Finally, threats and other means were used to prevent him from coming to work, while the company dismissed him on the grounds of "unexcused absenteeism" and "voluntary resignation," refusing any compensation or severance. Seeing that the company was beyond saving, Zhu decided to fight for his rightful interests before the company went under, and entrusted the Zhiming lawyer team from Guangdong Zhiming Law Firm to pursue the recovery of unpaid wages and economic compensation. Under the arrangement of Zhiming's lead attorney, team lawyer Zhang Qingping was assigned to handle the case.

Although Zhu did not provide substantive evidence, with the assistance of lawyer Zhang Qingping, Zhu obtained the "transaction details" of his salary card from the bank and successfully calculated the unpaid paid annual leave wages owed by the company. Secondly, although Zhu's salary followed a "minimum wage standard + related benefits" model, and the "related benefits" were quite vague, lawyer Zhang Qingping believed that a basic reference value could still be derived by itemizing the average salary of Zhu's first 10 months, which could serve as the wage standard for Zhu's final two months. Finally, during the evidence exchange stage of arbitration, lawyer Zhang Qingping discovered that the company had actually forged a "Notice" to prove that Zhu was dismissed for unauthorized absenteeism, despite repeated reminders and without completing a work handover. In response, lawyer Zhang Qingping, after consulting with chief lawyer Wang Tengfeng, believed that the "Notice" was merely the company's unilateral statement, intended to fabricate facts and confuse the issue. However, in the absence of other relevant evidence, this "Notice" should not be accepted by the arbitration tribunal, and therefore Zhu could still request the tribunal to terminate the labor relationship and demand the company to pay economic compensation.

In the arbitration tribunal, lawyer Zhang Qingping engaged in intense back-and-forth debates with the attorney representing the company's actual controller over issues such as whether Zhu had been absent from work without authorization. Although Zhu was unable to provide any other evidence in the entire case besides bank statements of salary payments, Zhang Qingping still managed to challenge and refute the materials, including the "Notice," submitted by the attorney for the company's actual controller, prompting the tribunal to see the facts clearly. In the end, the tribunal issued its ruling: fully supporting Zhang Qingping's arguments, ordering the company to make up two months' salary for Zhu, pay two years' worth of paid annual leave wages, and provide Zhu with economic compensation for the termination of the labor relationship.