Xiaomi defaults on employment agreement

World
Europe

"I received the offer from Xiaomi, however, I was told that others had replaced (me) and the offer has been closed by Xiaomi’s HR staff,” said Huang Ming, a girl from northeast China to Legal Evening News. Believing that she had the job, Huang had even rented a house near the company.

The offer from Xiaomi. /Weibo Photo

On April 13, Huang received a job offer for the role of accountant at Xiaomi. After she sent the confirmation letter to the human resources team, she rented a studio near the company for 8,000 yuan (1,263 US dollars) per month.

A week later, she received a call from Xiaomi's HR team, telling her that "when a staff said that your offer had been closed, we found someone else." She thought the call was a joke. "How could a big company be so casual?" Huang said.

Then she contacted the HR person who initially sent the offer letter to her. That person said that she had been replaced and was no longer at the company. Huang immediately accused the company of defaulting on the offer and asked for solutions. The staff replied that "the company does not have such regulations.”

The Legal Evening News’ reporter also got in contact with Xiaomi’s HR team to ask if they had defaulted on Huang's agreement. The team hung up on her.

On May 8, the company's HR person called Huang again to tell her that they had found the right position for her. On hearing that, Huang said "I feel like they are playing a trick. Why didn't they accept me before? It’s clearly disingenuous and purposeful.”

Zhou Zhaocheng, a lawyer at Beijing Zhongyong law firm, said that a job offer is a legally binding document between the company and its new employee. If the applicant receives the employment agreement, and the company unilaterally cancels it, then the company has defaulted on the agreement.

Job seekers can therefore hold the company accountable for breach of contract. If the applicant can prove that he or she has suffered losses due to the company's default behavior, the enterprise should be liable for the loss.

15km