你说啥？公司以采购杀毒软件高于市场价格，造成巨大经济损失为由拒绝支付违法解除劳动关系经济赔偿金，把一运维主管“炒鱿鱼”后，上法庭败诉了！这是咋回事，走我们一起去看看。
一、事件梳理
2017年4月5日：张某入职北京育悦科技有限公司（后简称“育悦公司”），离职前12个月平均工资为9000元。
2019年9月29日：育悦公司就与张某解除劳动关系诉争事项申请劳动仲裁。
2020年6月10日：北京市朝阳区劳动人事争议仲裁委员会作出相关裁决，育悦公司需支付张某违法解除劳动关系赔偿金63845元、9月1日-9月27日工资13433.9元、2018年12月1日-2019年9月27日绩效奖金14400元、以及为张某开具离职证明。
二、关于是否违法解除
一审判决中，双方均认可2019年9月27日育悦公司以严重违反公司制度与张某解除劳动关系。张某主张，公司人力部门与其谈话，说其严重违反公司制度但并未明确其具体违纪行为，而两份核查报告也是在其申请劳动仲裁后才向其送达的。
育悦公司主张口头告知张某其违纪行为，由于领导已经离职，具体解除细节不清楚，且其认为张某签订的两份软件购买合同高于市场价格，但育悦公司当庭认可张某签订的上述两份软件购买合同经过了公司的审批程序，从合同中可以看出，张某并非合同签订的经手人而只是公司内部流程的发起人。仅从该证据，并未能看出张某严重违法公司制度，故一审法院对育悦公司的诉求不予支持。
二审判决中，育悦公司认为，张某虽不是上述合同的联系人，由于其作为杀毒软件用户许可采购项目的发起人，该项目两份采购合同的采购价格不仅远高于市场价格，两份的采购价格也相距甚远，给公司造成了巨大的经济损失，也应该对该合同签订造成的损失承担责任，所以算合法解除。
张某主张，上述两个合同最终的价格由采购部负责拟定，是由于该合同需归入运维部门成本，故其只作为运维人员进行申请。从流程中可以看出，张某作为运营部的人，提起了相关申请，但该合同经过了公司内部多方审查及审批，涉及律师审查、采购部审核及比价谈判事宜，且张某并非该合同的联系负责人，故二审法院对一审判决予以确认。
三、关于是否应支付绩效工资
一审法院判决中，育悦公司主张每年年底对去年9月至当年9月进行考评，因未到年底进行考评，故没有发放张某绩效工资。但由于公司并未进行有力举证，一审法院判决其支付张某绩效。
而二审法院判决中，育悦公司也仍旧未能提交其所称未到年底考评不发放绩效奖金的公司规章制度，也未能举证证明上述规章制度经过了民主制定程序，法院对此未予采信。
四、网友评论
网友A：这也说明了一个问题，作为运维人员，负责了招标采购。得经过一步成立招标采购委员会，行成会议纪要。并加上一句经过招标采购委员会一致同意，确认某某某为此次供应商这之类的话。并且全体签字。说明搞技术的人，对文字性东西确实是一个弱项。
网友B：价格不是采购的事情吗？运维只管指标是否满足而已，好奇怪？
网友C：该公司IT采购哪个部门负责？是否通过招标方式？采购过程有无违规行为？应该一查到底，谁的问题谁负责！张某应该难以脱责，作为运维主管，不应出卖公司利益，自己决定不了的，应存留证据。
翻译：
What did you say? The company refused to pay economic compensation for illegal termination of labor relations on the grounds that the purchase of anti-virus software was higher than the market price, causing huge economic losses. After “firing” an operation and maintenance supervisor, the company lost the lawsuit in court! What’s going on? Let’s go find out.
First, event sorting
April 5, 2017: Zhang joined Beijing Yuyue Technology Co., LTD. (hereinafter referred to as “Yuyue Company”), with an average salary of 9,000 yuan in the 12 months before leaving.
September 29, 2019: Yuyue Company applied for labor arbitration on the dispute over the termination of labor relations with Zhang.
June 10, 2020: According to the ruling made by the Labor Dispute Arbitration Commission of Beijing Chaoyang District, Yuyue Company shall pay Zhang 63,845 yuan in compensation for illegally terminating labor relations, 13,433.9 yuan in salary from September 1 to September 27, 14,400 yuan in performance bonus from December 1, 2018 to September 27, 2019, and issue a separation certificate for Zhang.
Ii. Whether it is illegally terminated
In the judgment of the first instance, both parties recognized that on September 27, 2019, Yuyue Company terminated the labor relationship with Zhang for serious violation of company rules. Zhang claimed that the human resources department of the company talked to him, saying that he seriously violated the company’s system but did not specify his specific disciplinary violations, and that the two inspection reports were delivered to him after he applied for labor arbitration.
Yuyue claims to orally inform Zhang of his disciplinary violation. Since the leader has left the company, the specific details of the termination are not clear, and it believes that the two software purchase contracts signed by Zhang are higher than the market price. However, Yuyue accepts in court that the above two software purchase contracts signed by Zhang have gone through the approval process of the company, which can be seen from the contracts. Zhang is not the person who signed the contract but the initiator of the company’s internal process. Only from the evidence, it could not be seen that Zhang seriously violated the company system, so the court of first instance did not support the appeal of Yuyue Company.
In the judgment of the second instance, Yuyue Company held that although Zhang was not the contact person of the above contract, as he was the initiator of the license purchase project for anti-virus software users, the purchase price of the two purchase contracts of the project was not only far higher than the market price, but also far apart from each other, which caused huge economic losses to the company. Yuyue Company should also bear the responsibility for the losses caused by the signing of the contract. So it’s legally discharged.
Zhang claimed that the final price of the above two contracts was drawn up by the purchasing department, because the contract needs to be included in the cost of the operation and maintenance department, so he only applied as the operation and maintenance personnel. It can be seen from the process that Zhang, as a member of the operation department, filed a relevant application, but the contract has been reviewed and approved by multiple parties within the company, involving the review of lawyers, the review of the purchase department and the price comparison negotiation. Moreover, Zhang is not the contact person in charge of the contract, so the court of second instance confirmed the judgment of the first instance.
Third, whether performance pay should be paid
According to the court of first instance, Yuyue insisted that the company should evaluate Zhang from September of last year to September of this year at the end of each year, but did not pay Zhang merit pay because the evaluation was not done at the end of the year. But because the company did not provide strong evidence, the court of first instance decided to pay Zhang performance.
The court of second instance ruled that Yuyue still failed to submit the company’s rules and regulations on not paying performance bonuses until the end of the year, and failed to prove that the rules and regulations had been democratically enacted, which the court did not accept.
Four, netizen comments
Net Friend A: This also shows a problem, as the operation and maintenance personnel, responsible for the bidding and procurement. A bidding and procurement committee shall be set up and minutes of the meeting shall be completed. It is agreed by the bidding and Procurement committee that XXX is the supplier of this time. And sign it all. It shows that technical people are really weak in writing.
Net friend B: Isn’t the price a matter of purchasing? Operations is just about whether or not the metrics are met. Weird?
Which department is responsible for IT procurement? Is it through bidding? Are there any irregularities in the procurement process? We should get to the bottom of it. Who is responsible for the problem? Zhang Mou should be difficult to escape responsibility, as the operation and maintenance supervisor, should not sell the interests of the company, they can not decide, should remain evidence.
本文由数字化转型网（www.szhzxw.cn）根据公开资料整理原创而成，作者/编辑/翻译：数字化转型网默然。
免责声明: 本网站(https://www.szhzxw.cn/)内容主要来自原创、合作媒体供稿和第三方投稿，凡在本网站出现的信息，均仅供参考。本网站将尽力确保所提供信息的准确性及可靠性，但不保证有关资料的准确性及可靠性，读者在使用前请进一步核实，并对任何自主决定的行为负责。本网站对有关资料所引致的错误、不确或遗漏，概不负任何法律责任。
本网站刊载的所有内容(包括但不仅限文字、图片、LOGO、音频、视频、软件、程序等) 版权归原作者所有。任何单位或个人认为本网站中的内容可能涉嫌侵犯其知识产权或存在不实内容时，请及时通知本站，予以删除。
