Email
marketing@talent-spot.com.cn
Recently, a topic has been circulating within community discussions:
The offered salary agreed upon with HR before joining was 10,000 yuan. However, upon signing the labor contract after joining, the salary field was left blank. Later, when receiving the contract, the salary was filled in as only 5,000 yuan, yet the company continued to pay the agreed 10,000 yuan in practice. Does this situation pose any risks?
In reality, discrepancies between the wage stated in the labor contract and the actual salary paid are not uncommon in daily work life. However, common practice does not equate to legality—such arrangements can harm employees' rights and also expose employers to potential risks.
01
What Risks Arise from
Inconsistencies Between Contractual and Actual Wages?
Let’s examine a specific case for clarity.
Case Details
On July 1, 2021, Zhong joined a company. The labor contract stated a basic monthly salary of 2,200 yuan, with a note that the company could adjust the salary based on work performance and capabilities. Zhong worked until April 20, 2022, when both parties mutually agreed to terminate the employment relationship. The company paid wages up to March 31, 2022.
From July 2021 to March 2022, the company transferred wages to Zhong via bank transfers, with amounts ranging from a high of 7,319.36 yuan to a low of 3,766.36 yuan, including various sums like 4,000+ and 5,000+ yuan. Subsequently, Zhong requested the company to make up for the wage shortfall.
During arbitration, the company submitted the labor contract, asserting Zhong’s monthly salary was 2,200 yuan. Zhong acknowledged the contract’s authenticity but argued that the actual salary differed from the contractual terms. He provided bank transfer records as evidence and demanded the company pay the wage difference for November and December 2021, and January 2022, based on the higher monthly amount of 7,319.36 yuan. Additionally, Zhong stated that from February 2022 onward, his salary had been adjusted to 5,528.62 yuan per month and requested payment for April 2022 accordingly.
Case Analysis
In practice, many companies adopt similar approaches: stipulating a lower wage in the labor contract (often the local minimum wage) while actually paying a higher amount. Employers typically do this to reduce costs associated with social insurance contributions, overtime calculations, and other wage-based obligations. However, such practices are not legally compliant. If a dispute arises and the employee can provide evidence like bank statements showing the actual salary exceeds the contractual amount, labor arbitration authorities or courts generally recognize the actual salary as the basis for calculations.
Outcome
The arbitration ruling supported Zhong’s claim. The company appealed to the court but did not succeed.
Summary
In practice, to minimize social insurance expenses or reduce potential economic compensation liabilities, employers often stipulate a lower basic wage in the labor contract, leading to inconsistencies with the actual salary paid. So, how is the wage standard determined when disputes arise?
According to Article 43 of the Supreme People’s Court’s Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in Labor Dispute Cases (I), if an employer and an employee agree to modify the labor contract content orally and have performed the modified terms for over one month, and the modifications do not violate laws or regulations, the changes are considered valid.
In judicial practice, if an employer consistently pays a fixed amount higher than the contractual wage over an extended period and cannot reasonably explain the excess, it is generally viewed that both parties have effectively modified the wage terms through actual performance. In such cases, the actual salary paid is upheld as the standard.
Despite being common, such practices carry risks for employers. If business needs necessitate such arrangements, it is advisable to clarify the wage amount, ensure employees are aware and consent to the contractual terms, and ensure the agreed wage meets or exceeds the local minimum wage standard.
02 Signing Blank Labor Contracts
Poses Risks to Both Parties
The Labor Contract Law clearly states that employers must truthfully inform employees of job content, remuneration, social insurance, and other key terms during recruitment. These elements are core clauses of the labor contract and should be negotiated, clearly documented, and signed or sealed by both parties to take effect.
Some companies, aiming to mitigate employment risks, have employees sign labor contracts with blank clauses, assuming they can “flexibly” fill them in later during disputes. However, this approach often backfires.
For example:
Some employers leave the remuneration clause blank to fill in later. If a dispute arises due to unclear wage terms and no agreement or collective contract exists, arbitration or courts may apply the principle of “equal pay for equal work.”
Others leave the social insurance clause blank and later insert statements like “the employee voluntarily waives social insurance.” Such clauses typically violate mandatory legal provisions and are deemed invalid.
Therefore, employers should abandon the notion that “blank contracts are a universal safeguard.” Instead, they should engage in good-faith negotiations with employees, ensure contracts are fully completed, and provide a signed copy to each party.
How Should Employees Respond to Blank Contracts?
First, understand the legal consequences of signing a blank contract. Unless there is evidence of fraud or coercion, signing a contract with blank clauses is generally construed as authorizing the other party to fill them in, which may bind the employee.
Second, if presented with a blank contract, raise questions proactively. Request that all clauses be completed before signing, and avoid signing documents with blank sections whenever possible.
Finally, if the employer fails to provide a signed copy of the contract, and negotiations prove futile, employees may file a complaint with the local labor inspection authorities at the place of performance or the employer’s location, demanding the return of the labor contract.
