Is it valid to terminate the employment relationship without conducting a departure medical examination?

Thread Content

　In January 2012, Chen signed an employment contract with a chemical company in Guangzhou, in the role of a regular cement packer. The term of the employment contract was from January 10, 2012, to January 9, 2015. On August 24, 2014, a chemical manufacturing company in Guangzhou (Party A), due to Chen’s unsatisfactory performance at work, negotiated with Chen (Party B) to terminate the labor contract. The two parties signed an agreement regarding the termination of the contract, which stipulated that Party A would pay Party B, in a lump sum by August 30, 2014, a total of 20,000 yuan covering wages (including double wages), overtime pay, heat allowance, compensation for the termination of the labor relationship, and other expenses related to the termination of the labor contract. Party B confirms that all expenses related to the termination of the labor contract, such as the salary (including double salary), overtime pay, heat allowance, compensation for termination of the employment relationship, and workers’ injury benefits, have been paid in full, and hereby waives any right to make further claims. Both parties have settled all labor rights and obligations, and shall not hold each other accountable in the future. 　　On the same day, Chen orally requested a Guangzhou-based chemical company to arrange a medical examination for his departure. The company verbally promised to arrange for Chen to undergo a medical examination on September 15, 2014, as part of the new employees’ health check-ups, but the matter was never carried out. In March 2015, Chen was admitted to the hospital due to coughing up blood, and was later diagnosed with stage 1 pneumoconiosis by the hospital. In April 2015, it was recognized as an occupational injury by the local labor bureau; in May 2015, it was assessed by the Guangzhou Labor Ability Appraisal Committee as having a disability level of seven due to an occupational disease. Chen then requested a certain chemical company in Guangzhou to restore the labor relationship between the two parties as of August 24, 2014, and to provide compensation for work-related injuries. A chemical company in Guangzhou believes that the two parties have agreed to terminate their employment relationship, and Chen has actually left the job; therefore, the company refuses to restore the employment relationship. The amounts specified in the agreement regarding the termination of the employment contract already include compensation for work-related injuries, meaning that both parties’ rights and obligations under the employment contract are fulfilled, and neither party shall hold the other accountable. Thus, the company refuses to pay Chen any compensation related to work-related injuries. So, can Chen’s claims be supported? 【Lawyer’s Opinion】 As expert lawyers in the field of labor law, Zheng Xianchun and Liang Jinghui from Guangdong Ganghong Law Firm believe that the key issue in this case is whether, when an employer and an employee who is exposed to occupational disease hazards agree to terminate their employment relationship, the employment relationship is automatically terminated if the employee has not undergone a pre-departure occupational health examination, and whether the agreement to terminate the employment contract is valid. 　　In accordance with Article 42 of the Labor Contract Law, \"Under any of the following circumstances, an employer shall not terminate a labor contract in accordance with Articles 40 and 41 of this Law: (1) Workers engaged in work involving exposure to occupational disease hazards have not undergone pre-departure occupational health examinations, or workers suspected of having an occupational disease are under diagnosis or medical observation; … (6) Other circumstances stipulated by laws and administrative regulations.\" This article does not legally exclude the situation where an employer and an employee agree to terminate the employment contract through mutual consultation. However, it would be too one-sided to simply conclude, based solely on the provisions of this article, that terminating the labor relationship through mutual agreement between the employer and the workers engaged in work exposed to occupational disease hazards is always valid. 　　In accordance with Article 36 of the Law on the Prevention and Control of Occupational Diseases, \"for workers engaged in tasks involving exposure to occupational disease hazards, employers shall organize pre-employment, periodic, and post-employment occupational health examinations in accordance with the regulations set by the state council’s department responsible for work safety supervision and management as well as the health administration department, and shall inform the workers in writing of the results of these examinations.\" The costs of occupational health examinations are borne by the employer. The employer… shall not terminate or end the labor contract with workers who have not undergone pre-departure occupational health examinations…” It is clear that this provision imposes a mandatory requirement on employers to arrange for occupational health examinations for workers engaged in tasks involving exposure to occupational disease hazards. 　　At the same time, in accordance with Article 10 of the \"Interpretations of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Labor Dispute Cases (III)\", an agreement reached between an employee and an employer regarding the procedures for terminating or ending the labor contract, as well as the payment of wages, overtime pay, economic compensation, or damages, shall be deemed valid provided that it does not violate any mandatory provisions of laws or administrative regulations, and there is no element of fraud, coercion, or taking advantage of a vulnerable situation. If there is a material misunderstanding or obvious unfairness in the agreement mentioned in the preceding paragraph, and the parties request its revocation, the people’s court shall grant such request. 　　Based on the above analysis, since Guangzhou’s a certain chemical company and Chen, who was engaged in work involving exposure to occupational disease hazards, did not undergo pre-termination occupational health examinations, even if an agreement is reached between the two parties to terminate the employment relationship, such agreement is invalid as it violates the mandatory provisions of laws and administrative regulations. Chen’s request for the company to restore the labor relationship and pay work-related injury insurance benefits is legally grounded and should be supported. 　　Here, Lawyer Liang Jinghui from Guangdong Ganghong Law Firm reminds employers that it is their legal obligation to arrange occupational health examinations for workers who are engaged in tasks involving exposure to occupational disease hazards before they leave their jobs. If the failure to undergo a pre-departure occupational health examination is due to reasons on the part of the employee (such as the employee voluntarily giving up or refusing to undergo the examination), evidence should be kept to avoid risks. For example: The notice of resignation should clearly state that the employee has the right to request a pre-departure occupational health examination, as well as the time and place for such an examination; if the employee refuses or waives this right, they must sign the notice to confirm such refusal or waiver.