There is no evidence for employees to claim the year-end bonus, which is not supported

Mr. Hua has worked in a stainless steel products company located in Gaoyi County since 2006. A fixed-term (Two-year) labor contract was signed on January 1, 2018. The contract stipulates that Party B (Mr. Hua) has been absent from work for three days in a month. Party A (company) has the right to terminate the labor contract without paying any economic compensation. According to Item 2, item 4, Chapter V of the company's management rules and regulations, employees must ask for leave in person from their direct leaders, and they can rest only after being approved. It is not allowed to ask for leave by telephone or others.
On December 31, 2018, Mr. Hua asked for leave from the company because of something at home, and performed the normal approval procedures. After the leave expired, Mr. Hua called and texted to ask for a renewal of the leave, but it was not approved by the leaders according to the procedures, and Mr. Hua didn't go to work. On March 5, 2019, the company made a decision to terminate the labor contract against Mr. Hua on the grounds that he had seriously violated the rules and regulations. Later, Jia Xiaoguang, a staff member of the company's office, informed Mr. Hua by telephone, but Mr. Hua had not gone to the company to go through the relevant procedures. On March 5, 2019, Mr. Hua applied for labor arbitration, and the local labor and personnel dispute arbitration commission made the (2019) No. 17 arbitration award on April 24 of the same year.
First instance: it is required that the year-end bonus will not be recognized if the evidence is insufficient
Mr. Hua filed a lawsuit with the court of first instance and ordered the company to pay 2659 yuan of salary and 3400 yuan of year-end bonus in November 2018.
The court held that the fact that the company terminated the labor contract with Mr. Hua on the grounds of absenteeism was clear and well founded, which should be supported by law. Mr. Hua's argument that the company's rules and regulations are too strict, violate the labor law, and should be invalid terms has no legal basis and is not accepted. Mr. Hua asked the company to pay the 2018 year-end bonus and economic compensation, but the evidence was insufficient and it was not recognized.
Gaoyi County People's court made (2019) Ji 0127 min Chu No. 540 civil judgment, and the first instance judgment: rejected the claim of Hua. The case acceptance fee is 10 yuan, which is borne by Mr. Hua.
Second instance: lack of facts and basis and do not support the claim of year-end bonus
Hua refused to accept the first instance judgment and appealed to Shijiazhuang intermediate people's court. Hua said: the detailed list of debit cards of ICBC confirmed that on April 13, 2018, the company paid a 2017 year-end bonus of 3400 yuan to Hua, which was also recognized by the company. In 2018, Mr. Hua worked continuously for one year and should also receive a year-end bonus of 3400 yuan. The company has issued the salary card of ICBC to other employees of the company. According to the legal spirit of equal pay for equal work in the labor contract law, the company should also pay Mr. Hua.
The court held that the year-end bonus is a one-time bonus paid by the enterprise to employees according to its annual economic benefits and the comprehensive assessment of employees' annual work performance. The specific amount and form of payment are generally adjusted by the enterprise itself according to the situation. Whether to pay and how to pay is a reasonable scope of the enterprise's business autonomy. Mr. Hua claimed that the company should pay 3400 yuan of the year-end bonus in 2018, but he did not provide sufficient and effective evidence to prove it. His claim lacked corresponding factual and legal basis, and it was not inappropriate for the court of first instance not to support it.
The court of second instance made the civil judgment (2020) Ji 01 min Zhong No. 941, and the judgment of second instance was as follows: the appeal was rejected and the original judgment was upheld.