The reporter from the Beijing News learned that recently, the People's Court of Miyun District, Beijing, heard a case in which a worker safeguarded his legitimate rights and interests by exercising the right of revocation. In the end, the court held that the resignation agreement signed between the company and the worker caused the worker to have a major misunderstanding and was manifestly unfair, and thus ruled to revoke it.
The Employee Applied to Revoke the Resignation Agreement Claiming It Was Manifestly Unfair
Hu joined an airline company on July 15, 2013, and engaged in work such as a pilot and director of flight standards. His monthly salary was approximately 46,000 yuan. Later, the airline company signed the "Flight Training Agreement", "Supplementary Agreement", and "Amendment to the Supplementary Agreement" with Hu several times, stipulating that the airline company would lend money to Hu for paying the pilot training fees, and also stipulating Hu's minimum service period. The last signed "Amendment to the Supplementary Agreement" stated, "After Party B (Hu) borrows more than 2 million yuan from Party A (the airline company) and participates in the training arranged by Party A, he shall fulfill a service period of not less than eight years and eight months. Regardless of any reason, if Party B's service period in Party A is less than eight years and eight months, Party B shall pay the full amount of the borrowed training fees to Party A before leaving the job."
On March 24, 2023, the airline company sent a "Labor Contract Termination Notice" to Hu, informing that the labor contract between the two parties would be terminated on March 31, 2023, and Hu should pay the airline company more than 1.9 million yuan in borrowed training fees. On April 7, 2023, the airline company and Hu signed a "Resignation Agreement". It mainly stated: "Through mutual negotiation and agreement, the labor relationship between the two parties was terminated on March 31, 2023... Party A (the airline company) will pay Party B (Hu) a resignation compensation... which includes all the payments that Party B is entitled to due to the labor contract and its termination... According to multiple 'Supplementary Agreements' and 'Amendments to the Supplementary Agreement' signed by both parties, since Party B left the job before the expiration of the service period, Party B needs to pay Party A the borrowed training fees. Both Party A and Party B agree and confirm that Party A has the right to deduct the borrowed amount that Party B should pay from the resignation compensation stipulated in this agreement. After offsetting, Party A does not need to pay any resignation compensation to Party B, and Party B also does not need to return any borrowed amount to Party A."
Later, Hu believed that the borrowed amount (training fees) required by the airline company for him to pay did not actually occur. The "Resignation Agreement" was signed by the airline company when he was in a difficult situation and lacked the ability to judge, and the agreement was manifestly unfair. So, on March 19, 2024, he applied for arbitration to the labor arbitration commission, requesting to revoke the signed "Resignation Agreement". The arbitration commission did not accept it, and then Hu sued to the court.
During the court trial, the airline company argued that there were no defects in the validity of the signing process and content of the "Resignation Agreement" that would make it manifestly unfair, and it was legal and valid. When Hu signed the "Resignation Agreement", there were no circumstances of any major misunderstanding or manifestly unfair situation. As a person with full capacity for civil conduct, especially as a professional flight talent with a relatively high salary, Hu clearly understood his act of signing the "Resignation Agreement" and was fully able to understand the content of the agreement. Moreover, Hu had signed the "Resignation Agreement", clearly stating that there were no circumstances of fraud, coercion, major misunderstanding, and manifestly unfairness, and at the same time confirming that there were no further disputes or unfinished matters between the two parties.
The Court: The Agreement Caused the Worker to Have a Major Misunderstanding and Was Manifestly Unfair, and It Was Revoked
The court held during the trial that according to Article 35 of the "Interpretation (I) of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Labor Dispute Cases", an agreement reached between a worker and an employer on handling relevant procedures for the termination or dissolution of the labor contract, payment of salary, overtime pay, economic compensation, or damages, etc., which does not violate the mandatory provisions of laws and administrative regulations and does not involve circumstances of fraud, coercion, or taking advantage of others' distress, shall be determined to be valid. If the aforesaid agreement has circumstances of major misunderstanding or manifestly unfairness, and the parties request to revoke it, the people's court shall support such a request.
In this case, before the airline company sent the termination notice to Hu, on the grounds that "the fixed-wing flight business of the company has entered a state of suspension of production", it arranged for Hu to be on standby from January 1 to February 28, 2023, and reduced Hu's salary treatment, but the airline company did not submit relevant evidence of the suspension of production of its fixed-wing flight business. Later, the airline company arranged for Hu to take annual leave from March 1 to March 31, 2023. Hu refused twice, and the airline company also did not communicate and negotiate with Hu. The airline company required Hu to pay more than 1.9 million yuan in borrowed training fees for the company, but the company admitted that the borrowing behavior did not actually occur. At the same time, the airline company also did not submit the detailed list of training fees it spent on Hu each year.
In conclusion, before the airline company and Hu signed the "Resignation Agreement", the airline company took actions such as placing Hu on standby, reducing his salary, and forcing him to take annual leave, resulting in Hu being unable to provide flight services for a long time and his income being reduced. Later, it sent a "Labor Contract Termination Notice" to Hu, requiring Hu to pay a huge amount of training fees, forcing Hu to sign the "Resignation Agreement" under great economic pressure, and Hu did not have the circumstances where he should pay the training fees to the airline company. It can be determined that Hu had a major misunderstanding of the content of the agreement, and the "Resignation Agreement" did not provide any economic compensation to Hu, and the agreement was manifestly unfair. Therefore, the court ruled to revoke the "Resignation Agreement" signed between the airline company and Hu.
Reporter from the Beijing News: Zhang Jingshu,
Correspondent: Ma Huanhuan
Editor: Yang Hai, Proofreader: Zhang Yanjun