In the previous articles, I shared how I won my labor arbitration case starting from the filing on March 2, 2021, and then continued to win in the first instance. After the first instance, the company refused to accept the judgment and appealed. However, the filing process for the second instance took nearly five months. This article reviews the process, and after reading it, you'll understand why it took so long.
Flashback
Since the timeline is quite long, readers who haven't seen the previous eight articles may not be familiar with the background. Here's a timeline recap to give you a general idea. For more details on the earlier process, you can refer back to the earlier articles in this series.
- March 2, 2021: Case filed, labor arbitration begins.
- May 21, 2021: Evidence submitted.
- May 24, 2021: Labor arbitration hearing held.
- July 12, 2021: Received the arbitration award, learned that the company appealed.
- September 24, 2021: Received notice from Beijing Chaoyang People's Court to pick up the first-instance summons.
- October 12, 2021: First-instance trial held at Beijing Chaoyang People's Court.
- December 29, 2021: Received electronic service of the first-instance judgment.
- January 5, 2022: Received the written first-instance judgment (the effective date of the first-instance judgment starts from this time).
- January 18, 2022: The company prepared the second-instance appeal and mailed it out. The second-instance process began.
The Second-Instance Process
My second-instance filing took nearly five months. During that time, I repeatedly contacted the judge and clerk to inquire about progress, ask about process details, identify bottlenecks, and understand their difficulties and challenges. Thus, I learned the detailed steps of the second-instance filing. Here's a brief overview:
- If either party disagrees with the first-instance judgment, they must appeal to the intermediate people's court within a specified period (15 days). If the appeal is mailed, it is valid as long as the mailing date falls within the 15-day period from the first-instance judgment. However, the appeal petition is submitted to the first-instance court, which then "forwards" it to the second-instance court.
- After receiving the appeal petition, the first-instance court serves it to the appellee (i.e., me).
- Once the first-instance court confirms that the appellee has received the appeal petition, it contacts the appellant to pay the appeal fee (must be paid within 7 business days).
- After the appellant pays the fee, the first-instance court begins copying all relevant materials and case files (which should include evidence and documents from the first-instance stage). The copies are electronic.
- After completing the electronic copies of the case files, the first-instance court submits them in the internal system.
- After approval by various levels of reviewers in the internal system, the electronic case file reaches the node of the case-handling clerk.
- After receiving the approved case file, the clerk uploads it to the intermediate people's court.
- Upon receiving the second-instance case file, the intermediate people's court proceeds with filing, arranges a hearing schedule as appropriate, and notifies both parties.
After reading this process, what do you think? Before continuing, consider which steps the company could exploit to delay time.
How Did My Second-Instance Filing Take Nearly Five Months?
On December 29, 2021, I received the first-instance judgment electronically. A few days later (January 5, 2022), I received the written judgment. The judgment stated: "If dissatisfied, you must appeal to the Third Intermediate People's Court within 15 days of receiving the judgment."
Thus, on January 18, 2022, the company prepared an appeal petition and mailed it to the Chaoyang People's Court. Note the timing—exactly 13 days after the written service, only 2 days shy of the 15-day limit. Their "delay tactic" was clearly well-practiced.
Since the appeal petition is considered valid as long as it is mailed within the 15-day period, even if the delivery takes a month and exceeds the 15-day period, it doesn't matter. So I had no idea when the mail arrived at the Chaoyang People's Court. In February, I called the first-instance judge multiple times but couldn't get through.
At the end of February, I finally reached the clerk, who told me they had received the company's appeal materials but hadn't processed them yet. I asked when they would be processed, and the clerk replied, "Probably around March." I asked if it would definitely be done by March, and they said they couldn't guarantee it. I said I'd call back in mid-March to check on progress. Then, throughout March, I could barely reach the clerk or judge. At the end of March, I finally got through to the judge, who said, "I'll remind the clerk." When I asked why it was so slow—it had been three months already—the judge replied, "The clerk has hearings every day and has no time. Please be patient."
I had many more communications with the judge and clerk afterward, but I won't list them all.
Time passed to mid-April, and my second-instance materials still hadn't been forwarded to the Third Intermediate People's Court. Then, COVID-19 hit Beijing, and the clerk was quarantined at home. No one handled my case.
By May 10, the clerk had just returned to work after the quarantine. I asked why there was still no progress. The clerk said, "Before the quarantine, I checked the system twice and saw that the company hadn't paid the appeal fee, so I couldn't proceed. The next day, I was quarantined." I asked about the fee payment. Apparently, the company was supposed to pay within 7 days of receiving the court's notice, but they hadn't paid by the third day. By the fourth day, the clerk was quarantined. The company's "delay tactic" had worked again.
After that, I communicated many more times with the court and clerk. Later, I encountered more obstacles: "The staff responsible for copying case files were outsourced and quarantined due to COVID-19," and "After copying the files, the system went down, preventing uploads. Due to COVID, IT personnel were not allowed into the court to fix the program."
From the mailing of the company's appeal on January 18 to the emergence of COVID-19 in Beijing in mid-to-late April, my judge and clerk had several months to copy and upload a single case file but failed to do so. After the pandemic, my case was "neglected." I was furious and even called the mayor's hotline for help. After many rounds of communication, my second-instance case was finally filed with the Third Intermediate People's Court on June 8, 2022.
The appeal petition was dated January 18, 2022; the official second-instance filing was June 8, 2022—nearly five months!!!
Later, on June 13, 2022, I received a call from the Third Intermediate People's Court notifying me of the hearing date (I attended the online hearing this Tuesday; I'll cover that later).
Summary & Reflections
The "tortuous" experience of the second-instance filing infuriated me. When my case was "neglected," I felt not only anger but also helplessness and disappointment. I called the mayor's hotline for help. In contrast, a colleague who went through arbitration had a smoother and faster process. My judge's excuse—"We're busy; we'll handle it when we can"—feels like a cop-out. Everyone is busy, but why could other judges resolve cases efficiently in a similar timeframe?
So, if you're going through arbitration, you need to care about your own case because "others" may not care as much.
Good News?
Today (July 2, 2022), while writing this memoir and just after finishing the above content, I received a call from the postal service about a court letter. I ran downstairs to sign for it, ripped it open, and it was indeed the second-instance judgment. I flipped to the last page, and the final line read: "The company's appeal is dismissed; the original judgment is upheld." YES! I won the second instance again—this is the final judgment. Everything is settled. Next step: figuring out how to collect the money.
I'll cover the follow-up in the next article. Preview: The process of the first-instance online hearing.