A fixed monthly salary of 45000 yuan, not included in attendance management, belongs to the annual salary system employees... "This seemingly attractive position hides an uncommon misconception. The employer stipulates in the employee handbook:" Employees who implement the annual salary system do not also enjoy annual leave benefits. "Is it really impossible to have both fish and bear's paw? Recently, the Intermediate People's Court of Suzhou City, Jiangsu Province, concluded a labor contract dispute case and supported the claim of unpaid annual leave wages by an annual salary system worker in accordance with the law. Through the judgment, it was clarified that regardless of the salary system adopted, annual leave is the statutory right of the worker. In August 2023, Xiao Li signed a labor contract with a company, agreeing to implement an annual salary system. In December 2024, a company unilaterally terminated the employment relationship with Xiao Li on the grounds of serious disciplinary violations and refused to pay the unpaid annual leave salary. Due to unsuccessful negotiations, Xiao Li initiated labor arbitration and demanded that the company pay compensation for illegal termination of the labor contract and unpaid annual leave wages. The arbitration award was upheld in May 2025. A certain company filed a lawsuit against it. The Suzhou Industrial Park People's Court and Suzhou Intermediate People's Court have both made judgments in accordance with the law in the first and second trials of this case, confirming that Xiao Li has a labor relationship with a certain company. The company should pay compensation of more than 100000 yuan for terminating the labor contract and 3100 yuan for unpaid annual leave wages. The effective judgment holds that a certain company terminated the labor relationship on the grounds of Xiao Li's serious violation of discipline, and should legally bear the burden of proof for the facts of the violation and the termination procedure. The unilateral removal of Xiao Li from the work system and the prohibition of entry into the office premises constitutes a unilateral expression of intention to terminate the labor contract, but the company has failed to prove the existence of disciplinary violations by the employee and has not fulfilled the procedure of notifying the union. In addition, the handover of work cannot be presumed as a mutual agreement to terminate the labor relationship, and therefore it is legally determined that a certain company constitutes an illegal termination. Regarding the determination of unpaid annual leave wages, the court has clarified that employers shall not deprive employees of their statutory right to rest and vacation due to differences in salary structure. Employees who implement an annual salary system should still enjoy paid annual leave in accordance with the law. According to Article 26 of the Labor Contract Law of the People's Republic of China, if an employer exempts itself from its legal responsibilities and excludes the rights of the worker, the labor contract is invalid or partially invalid. Paid annual leave for employees is a system arrangement made by the state to safeguard their right to rest and vacation, and to stimulate their work enthusiasm. Employers shall not exclude the statutory rights of employees through labor contracts or rules and regulations. The presiding judge stated that the Regulations on Paid Annual Leave for Employees are administrative regulations formulated by the State Council, with mandatory legal effect, and are an important component of the labor law system. Article 2 of the regulation clearly stipulates that if an employee works continuously for more than one year, they have the right to enjoy paid annual leave, and the calculation method of salary is not excluded. It can be seen that the annual salary system, as a form of payment for labor remuneration, does not conflict with the employee's right to rest and vacation. Employers shall not deprive employees of their statutory right to rest and vacation based on differences in salary structure. The presiding judge introduced that Article 3, Paragraph 1 of the Regulations on Paid Annual Leave for Employees stipulates that if an employee has worked for a cumulative period of 1 year but less than 10 years, they shall take 5 days of annual leave; For those who have been on vacation for 10 years but less than 20 years, they are entitled to 10 days of annual leave; For those who have been here for 20 years, they are entitled to 15 days of annual leave. In this case, Xiaoli meets the conditions for enjoying paid annual leave and can enjoy an annual leave standard of 10 days per year. However, a certain company argued that the employee handbook stipulates that annual salary employees do not enjoy annual leave. This provision exempts the employer from legal responsibilities and excludes the rights of employees, and should be deemed invalid. The judge's statement: Standardizing corporate governance and building harmonious labor relations. The direction of this case's judgment has typical demonstration significance for regulating corporate governance and building harmonious labor relations. One is to highlight the corrective function of mandatory legal norms on autonomy of will. The paid annual leave system, as a benchmark right in the field of labor law, has mandatory social law attributes. The court, by negating the effectiveness of clauses that exclude workers' rights, highlights the necessary limitations of labor standards norms on contractual freedom and reflects the biased protection of workers' rights to survival and development by the law. The second is to clarify the legality review standards for the rules and regulations of employers. According to Article 50 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on the Application of Law in the Trial of Labor Dispute Cases (I), the rules and regulations of the employer, as the basis for determining the rights and obligations of both parties, shall not violate national laws, administrative regulations, and policy provisions. It can be seen that judicial review needs to penetrate formal elements and make substantive legality judgments on the content of regulations. In this case, when there is a conflict between the institutional provisions and the statutory rest and vacation rights of workers, the legal effect is negated to effectively prevent employers from using technical terms to override statutory rights and interests. The third is the balance between the structure of labor remuneration and the value of the right to rest. The annual salary system, as a method of calculating compensation, falls within the scope of the employer's operational autonomy, but cannot form a zero sum game with the employee's right to rest. The court clarifies the legal relationship between the form of salary payment and the ownership of vacation, reaffirms the non tradable nature of the right to rest and vacation as a basic right of workers, and sets a bottom line for the protection of labor rights. (New Society)