º¬Ðß²ÝÉçÇø

In a recent labour dispute case handled by the authors, a listing company employer was registered in Shenzhen, but its annual report and several effective judgments identified its principal office as being in Beijing. The employer and an employee filed lawsuits in the Futian District People¡¯s Court in Shenzhen, and the Chaoyang District People¡¯s Court in Beijing, respectively, leading to a jurisdictional conflict. This case exemplifies jurisdictional conflicts; by analysing it, the authors clarify relevant legal provisions and discuss jurisdiction issues in labour disputes.

Trial process

After the cases were filed in both courts, the Futian court first served a writ of summons to the employee. The employee cited article 3(2) of the Interpretation of the Supreme People¡¯s Court on the Application of the Civil Procedure Law, which states:

¡°The domicile of a legal person or other organisation refers to the location of its principal office. If the location of the principal office cannot be determined, the registered or recorded address shall be deemed as the domicile.¡±

The employee asserted that the principal office was clearly in Beijing and raised a jurisdictional objection. The Futian court dismissed the objection, stating that the registered address should be considered the domicile. The employee appealed to the Shenzhen Intermediate Court, which dismissed the appeal with the same reasoning.

The case filed by the employee in the Chaoyang court was transferred to the Futian court. The employee continued to raise jurisdictional objections, which were again dismissed by the Futian court. The employee appealed, and the Shenzhen Intermediate Court ruled that the employee¡¯s initial jurisdictional objection in the first-instance case lacked a legal basis, thus confirming that the Futian court had jurisdiction.

Current provisions

Article 3 of the Interpretation I on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Labour Dispute Cases of the Supreme People¡¯s Court (SPC) stipulates that labour dispute cases are under the jurisdiction of the grassroots people¡¯s court where the employer is located, or where the labour contract is performed.

Unlike the Civil Procedure Law, the interpretation uses the term ¡°employer¡¯s location¡± instead of ¡°domicile¡±, which may lead to disputes. Most judgments interpret the employer¡¯s location as the domicile for the following reasons.

First, from a legal application perspective, the Civil Procedure Law and its interpretation have established a rule system for determining jurisdiction based on the domicile of the litigation subject. The Civil Procedure Law only provides for ¡°domicile¡± as the legal tie for determining jurisdiction, not ¡°location¡±. The ¡°employer¡¯s location¡± in the interpretation should be understood as ¡°domicile¡± to integrate smoothly into the existing jurisdictional rule system and ensure legal coherence.

Second, according to the rule of systematic interpretation, if ¡°employer¡¯s location¡± is not understood as ¡°domicile¡±, it would conflict with the legal system established by the Civil Procedure Law and its interpretation. Avoiding legal conflicts is the highest principle of legal interpretation.

Finally, numerous effective judgments interpret the employer¡¯s ¡°location¡± as ¡°domicile¡±, indicating that most courts share the authors¡¯ view.

Based on this, the employer¡¯s location should be interpreted as domicile, and the domicile should be determined as the location of the principal office of the employer, according to article 3 of the Interpretation of Civil Procedure Law.

Analysis of points

Both courts at different levels identified the jurisdictional tie as the employer¡¯s domicile, consistent with the above analysis. The dispute lies in determining the employer¡¯s domicile.

According to article 3 of the Civil Procedure Law Interpretation, the principal office of the legal person is the primary tie for determining jurisdiction, with the registered address as a secondary tie. However, both trial courts directly identified the registered address as the domicile, indicating that the application of article 3 of the Civil Procedure Law Interpretation by the courts is debatable.

Appeal rights

Regarding whether appeals can be made against cases transferred by the court ex officio, the Reply of the Supreme People¡¯s Court to Proposal No 5785 of the Second Session of the 13th National People¡¯s Congress states that, since the court¡¯s ex officio transfer decisions are not subject to appeal, parties can raise jurisdictional objections with the receiving court.

As these decisions do not involve the parties¡¯ subjective intent regarding jurisdiction and do not violate the principle of double jeopardy, the Civil Procedure Law does not exclude the parties¡¯ right to raise jurisdictional objections. If the receiving court believes it does not have jurisdiction, it should report to a higher court for jurisdiction designation.

According to the above-mentioned document, parties can raise jurisdictional objections to the receiving court for cases transferred ex officio. However, in the authors¡¯ case, although the first-instance court accepted the jurisdictional objection, the appellate court ultimately denied the right to raise such objections for transferred cases. Therefore, whether to accept the Supreme Court¡¯s reply allowing these objections will ultimately be decided by the relevant courts.

Mu Dunbo is a partner and Liu Jian is a partner at Zhilin Law Firm