Compiled from: Judgment Documents Network, Jufa
 
[2] Case Review
On June 7, 2018, the labor dispute case between plaintiff Wu Mouwei and defendant Beijing Haitian Zhiyuan Company was filed at the Taishan District People's Court in Tai'an City, Shandong Province.

 
 

Wu Mouwei claimed: He joined Haitian Zhiyuan Company in October 2016 and signed a labor contract valid from October 2016 to October 2019, with an average monthly salary of 4,732.6 yuan. Haitian Zhiyuan Company unilaterally terminated the contract in February 2018. Therefore, he filed a lawsuit with the court, requesting Haitian Zhiyuan Company to pay him one and a half months' economic compensation totaling 7,099 yuan.
 
The defendant, Haitian Zhiyuan Company, raised a jurisdictional objection during the submission of the defense.
 
The Taishan District People's Court of Tai'an City, Shandong Province, held that labor dispute cases are under the jurisdiction of the basic people's court at the location of the employer or the place of performance of the labor contract. The labor contract signed by both parties stipulated the workplace as Tai'an Wanda Plaza Office Building, so the Taishan District People's Court had jurisdiction over this case, and the jurisdictional objection of Haitian Zhiyuan Company was rejected.
 
The defendant, Haitian Zhiyuan Company, refused to accept the ruling and appealed. The Tai'an Intermediate People's Court held that the labor contract signed by both parties stipulated the dispute jurisdiction court as the Haidian District People's Court of Beijing, and this stipulation should be deemed valid, thus transferring the case to the Haidian District People's Court of Beijing for handling.
 
The Beijing Higher People's Court held that labor contracts have public law nature and personal attachment, and do not fall within the category of cases where the parties can agree to choose the jurisdiction court by law. The jurisdiction clause in the labor contract is invalid. In this case, both the Haidian District of Beijing, where the defendant is domiciled, and the Taishan District of Tai'an City, Shandong Province, where the labor contract is performed, have jurisdiction over this case. The Taishan District People's Court of Tai'an City, Shandong Province, having jurisdiction over this case, erroneously transferred it to the Haidian District People's Court of Beijing, and thus reported to this court for designation of jurisdiction.
 
 
[1] Relevant laws and regulations
Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China
Article 34 Agreement Jurisdiction
Parties to a contract or other property rights dispute may, by written agreement, choose the people's court at the defendant's domicile, the place of contract performance, the place of contract signing, the plaintiff's domicile, the location of the subject matter, or other places that have actual connection with the dispute to have jurisdiction, provided that this does not violate the provisions of this Law on hierarchical jurisdiction and exclusive jurisdiction.
 
Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Labor Dispute Cases
Article 8
Labor dispute cases shall be under the jurisdiction of the basic people's court at the location of the employer or the place of performance of the labor contract.
If the place of performance of the labor contract is unclear, the case shall be under the jurisdiction of the basic people's court at the location of the employer.
 
Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on the Application of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China
Article 36
[1] In cases where two or more people's courts have jurisdiction, the court that first files the case shall not transfer the case to another court with jurisdiction. If a court discovers before filing that another court with jurisdiction has already filed the case, it shall not file the case again; if it discovers after filing that another court with jurisdiction has already filed the case, it shall rule to transfer the case to the court that first filed it.

 
 

[1] The author's perspective
[2] According to Article 34 of the Civil Procedure Law, the scope of agreement jurisdiction applies to disputes over contracts or other property rights. Contract disputes here include those arising from contract formation, performance, modification, rescission, breach, etc., while other property rights disputes include civil disputes arising from property rights in real rights and intellectual property. Civil disputes arising from personal relationships cannot be subject to agreement jurisdiction. Labor dispute cases involve the labor relationship between employers and employees, which has a personal attribute, and thus do not apply to the relevant provisions on agreement jurisdiction. Therefore, the jurisdiction clause stipulated in the Labor Contract in this case is invalid.
 
[3] According to the above two judicial interpretations, the People's Court of Taishan District, Tai'an City, Shandong Province, as the basic people's court at the place of labor contract performance, and the People's Court of Haidian District, Beijing, as the basic people's court at the employer's location, both have jurisdiction over this case. Since the plaintiff Wu Mouwei initially chose to sue in the People's Court of Taishan District, Tai'an City, Shandong Province, and that court has jurisdiction over this case, the ruling of the Intermediate People's Court of Tai'an City to transfer this case to the People's Court of Haidian District, Beijing, is not feasible. Therefore, this case should be heard by the People's Court of Taishan District, Tai'an City, Shandong Province.