Wechat'S "Red Envelope" Wages Were Lost Because Of The Difficulty Of Giving Evidence.

Li Feng went to the labor arbitration department and sued a business company for arrears in 2015 3 to May wages.

The relevant person in charge of the trade company informed the arbitrator that the company had sent the wages to Li Feng on WeChat by issuing the "red envelope" form.

The person in charge took the cell phone to the arbitrator while participating in the trial. He saw that he had given Li Feng a large amount of red envelope on WeChat, but Li Feng did not receive the "red envelope" record on his cell phone.

The arbitration tribunal believes that according to the sixth provision of the labor dispute mediation and arbitration law, the trading company advocates it.

To provide evidence, because it has not submitted strong evidence to prove that it has been issued for Li Feng.

Therefore, we should bear the consequences of losing the lawsuit.

Comment on the Supreme People's court's Application

The 116th provision of interpretation: electronic data refers to information formed or stored in electronic media by means of e-mail, electronic data interchange, online chatting records, blogs, micro blogs, short messages, electronic signatures, domain names, etc.

The information on WeChat platform exists in the form of electronic data, and also belongs to electronic data.

However, the content of WeChat is difficult to submit as evidence. The first is how to confirm the identity of WeChat users. Now WeChat does not require the real name system, so the existence of WeChat users is not the problem of the parties themselves; second, the integrity of the content of WeChat chat as evidence, and the function of removing the content of dialogue in WeChat. If only taking a few of these dialogues as evidence can not be used as the expression of the true meaning of the parties.

At present, there is a lack of explicit certification rules and specialized electronic evidence authentication institutions for the confirmation of WeChat's user identity. If we can not confirm the identity of WeChat users, we can not confirm the relevance of WeChat evidence in cases.

Related links:

In early July 2015, Zhao Jing introduced to a security company to work.

A two-year labor contract signed between the two parties is agreed: the probation period is two months, the salary is 2000 yuan, the monthly salary is second yuan from second months, and the monthly salary is issued before the 10 day of each month.

When the salary was paid in August 10th, Xiao Zhao was told that employees must be detained for one month's wages as security deposit.

Ask other security guards, the answer is so.

The ninth provision of the labor contract law stipulates that the employing units shall not detain the workers' resident identity cards and other documents, nor require workers to provide guarantees or to collect property from other workers in other names.

The provision shows that when employing units in recruiting workers, three can not: they must not detain documents, nor require workers to provide security, nor to collect property from laborers in the form of margin.

The company's detention of Xiao Zhao's monthly salary as a margin is an illegal act. Xiao Zhao can protect his rights through complaints, reports, or labor arbitration.