Toy company loses orders, female employee blamed for losing lawsuit

The court held that the company’s own management problems should be attributed to the loss of 330,000 yuan due to translation errors. The court ruled that the toy company lost the lawsuit because the mold was substandard. A toy company lost a large order from a Finnish customer. She turned her anger on Aping, a female worker in charge of foreign trade merchandisers, and denounced her low level of English and translation errors that caused the company to lose 330,000 yuan. The company then sued the female employee A Ping to the court for a claim of 330,000 yuan. Recently, the Huadu District Court pronounced a verdict on this case, and the plaintiff Toy Company lost the case.　　 After the translation, both parties could not understand. 　　 Female worker A Ping, 25 years old this year, signed a labor contract with a toy company in Huadu on January 1, 2012 for a two-year contract. Her main responsibility is to engage in foreign trade documentary, and she needs to use English to communicate with foreign customers in daily life, and she must have good English writing and translation skills. Before entering the job, she provided a certificate of passing the CET-6 assessment.　　 However, the company is not satisfied with Ah Ping's business performance. In court, the toy company alleged that the English meaning of Aping’s daily communications with foreign customers was so unintelligible to the Finnish customers she had been in charge of. When she translated English into Chinese, the result was completely incomprehensible to Chinese customers.　　 Ah Ping’s “bad” performance made the company question her English level, and even suspected whether she had fraudulent academic qualifications. The company pointed out that Aping not only has a poor translation level, but also has an extremely irresponsible work attitude.　　330,000 losses caused by late delivery　　　　 In September 2012, a Finnish customer asked the toy company to customize a batch of suitcases. The size of the suitcases was clearly stated in the mail. As a result, Ah Ping's English level was poor, and the wrong box size was translated to the factory that produced the boxes. As a result, the suitcases needed by Finnish customers were not put into production until March 2013.　　Toy Company believes that the mistake made by the defendant, Aping, caused the company to lose the Finnish customer’s order, and the direct economic loss amounted to 330,000 yuan. Therefore, the company has to claim the economic loss of 330,000 yuan from Ah Ping.　　 Faced with a high claim of 330,000 yuan, Aping, a female employee, was unwilling to give in. She hired two lawyers to help. In court, Ah Ping replied that the company’s economic losses did not provide any valid evidence of loss.　　 At the same time, the company did not have any evidence to prove that it was her job behavior that caused the company's so-called economic losses. In fact, she is just a general administrative assistant in the company, and she doesn't have any decision-making power. Therefore, she requested the court to reject all claims of the plaintiff in accordance with the law.　　■Judge　　 cannot transfer business risks to employees　　The court held that, first of all, according to the evidence submitted by the defendant, Aping, the defendant was still familiar with his work shortly after entering the company, and the defendant obeyed the management of his supervisor, and the mail was sent to the customer after the supervisor confirmed it. The plaintiff could not prove that the four version-making errors of the suitcase were caused by the defendant's translation errors, or by the defendant sending emails to the customer without confirmation from his superiors.　　 To take a step back, even if the defendant’s reasons lead to an unsuccessful patterning, the failure of the subsequent three patternings can only be attributed to the imperfection of the plaintiff’s own management mechanism and the insufficiency of the upper management. Based on this, the court held that the plaintiff’s claim that the defendant should bear the liability for compensation was insufficient and the court did not support it. Yesterday, the trial judge told reporters that a prerequisite for grasping such labor dispute cases is to distinguish the causal relationship between the inventory loss and the laborer’s fault, and to distinguish whether the employer’s own management mechanism is complete and whether the upper management personnel are responsible. , It is even more necessary to distinguish whether the loss caused is the business risk of the employer. 'If we transfer business risks to workers, it is obviously neither fair nor reasonable for workers who earn only a few thousand yuan a month.'