China: Shanghai's highest Court issues guiding opinion making employee exits more difficult

In brief

The Shanghai High People's Court has issued "Extracts of Opinions on Difficult Labor Disputes Issues" ("Opinions"), a guidance summary of court opinions on various contentious employment issues, which took effect on 1 January 2025. The Opinions focus on various issues where the statutory law lacks clarity and the Shanghai courts have differing views on the correct legal position. They outline both the majority and minority opinions of the courts on each issue.


Contents

Key takeaways

While the "majority view" stated in the Opinions is not legally binding on Shanghai courts, as a practical matter, it is likely all courts in Shanghai will refer to the "majority view" stated in the Opinions when adjudicating relevant cases. The Opinions therefore will likely serve a crucial role when courts decide on the relevant issues covered. In particular, Shanghai employees will now have an easier time than before in demanding open-term (i.e., permanent) employment contracts, making it more difficult for employers to exit employees and generally reducing employers' flexibility in workforce management.

In more detail

The most important issue addressed is when employees become entitled to open-term/permanent employment contracts. Generally, employees on open-term contracts are more difficult to exit because early termination of employment by an employer may only be done on narrow statutory grounds. If an employee is on a fixed-term contract, employers can just let the fixed-term contract expire without the need for any justification, but if an employee is on an open-term contract, the employer no longer has the option of just letting the contract expire. Under the national Employment Contract Law, employees may demand an open-term contract at the end of the second consecutive fixed-term contract signed with an employer.

Previously, most Shanghai courts took the view that only if an employer agrees to renew employment for a third term would the employee then have the right to demand an open-term contract. In other words, the employer could still decide to let the contract expire at the end of the second fixed-term. Further, the employer could keep signing fixed-term contracts with the employee's agreement and just let any later fixed-term contracts expire if it so chooses (at least until the employee reaches 10 years of service). This was in contrast to the position taken in most other cities (such as Beijing), where the employee could unilaterally demand renewal on an open-term basis at the end of the second fixed-term, even if the company did not wish to renew the contract.

The Opinions now state that the official "majority view" on this issue is that employees may unilaterally demand renewal on an open-term basis at the end of the second fixed-term, bringing the Shanghai court's view on this issue in line with the view of other cities' courts. This represents a significant shift in position by the Shanghai High People's Court, which had previously issued a guiding opinion in 2009 taking the exact opposite view on this issue. Consequently, employers in Shanghai will now have reduced flexibility in managing their workforce and must decide at the end of an employee's first fixed-term contract whether to retain the employee on a long-term basis.

The Opinions also address the following significant issues:

  • If an employee successfully sues for reinstatement as part of an unlawful dismissal claim, back wages should be calculated only from the date the employee applied for mediation or arbitration, not from the original date of dismissal.
  • If an employer lets a contract expire without signing a new written agreement with the employee, the employer should have a one-month grace period to sign a written agreement before double wage penalties are applied.
  • If an employee is unlawfully dismissed during their statutory medical treatment period, they should not be entitled to receive the medical subsidy payment that is applicable when an employee is lawfully terminated on the ground that they have used up their statutory medical treatment period and are still unable to come to work.
  • If an employee transfers from one entity to another in the same location and continues in the same job position, their years of service can be recognized for purposes of severance calculation. However, these years of service should not be counted toward determining eligibility for an open-term contract (i.e., when they reach 10 years of service).

For more information, please contact jonathan.isaacs@bakermckenzie.com, zheng.lu@bakermckenziefenxun.com or bofu.an@bakermckenziefenxun.com.

* * * * *

LOGO BM-FenXun bold-RGB (003)

© 2025 Baker & McKenzie FenXun (FTZ) Joint Operation Office. All rights reserved. Baker & McKenzie FenXun (FTZ) Joint Operation Office is a joint operation between Baker & McKenzie LLP, and FenXun Partners, approved by the Shanghai Justice Bureau. In accordance with the common terminology used in professional service organisations, reference to a "partner" means a person who is a partner, or equivalent, in such a law firm.  This may qualify as "Attorney Advertising" requiring notice in some jurisdictions.  Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Contact Information
Jonathan Isaacs
Registered Foreign Lawyer at BakerMcKenzie
Hong Kong
Read my Bio
jonathan.isaacs@bakermckenzie.com
Zheng Lu
Senior Counsel
Fenxun Shanghai
Read my Bio
zheng.lu@bakermckenziefenxun.com

Copyright © 2025 Baker & McKenzie. All rights reserved. Ownership: This documentation and content (Content) is a proprietary resource owned exclusively by Baker McKenzie (meaning Baker & McKenzie International and its member firms). The Content is protected under international copyright conventions. Use of this Content does not of itself create a contractual relationship, nor any attorney/client relationship, between Baker McKenzie and any person. Non-reliance and exclusion: All Content is for informational purposes only and may not reflect the most current legal and regulatory developments. All summaries of the laws, regulations and practice are subject to change. The Content is not offered as legal or professional advice for any specific matter. It is not intended to be a substitute for reference to (and compliance with) the detailed provisions of applicable laws, rules, regulations or forms. Legal advice should always be sought before taking any action or refraining from taking any action based on any Content. Baker McKenzie and the editors and the contributing authors do not guarantee the accuracy of the Content and expressly disclaim any and all liability to any person in respect of the consequences of anything done or permitted to be done or omitted to be done wholly or partly in reliance upon the whole or any part of the Content. The Content may contain links to external websites and external websites may link to the Content. Baker McKenzie is not responsible for the content or operation of any such external sites and disclaims all liability, howsoever occurring, in respect of the content or operation of any such external websites. Attorney Advertising: This Content may qualify as “Attorney Advertising” requiring notice in some jurisdictions. To the extent that this Content may qualify as Attorney Advertising, PRIOR RESULTS DO NOT GUARANTEE A SIMILAR OUTCOME. Reproduction: Reproduction of reasonable portions of the Content is permitted provided that (i) such reproductions are made available free of charge and for non-commercial purposes, (ii) such reproductions are properly attributed to Baker McKenzie, (iii) the portion of the Content being reproduced is not altered or made available in a manner that modifies the Content or presents the Content being reproduced in a false light and (iv) notice is made to the disclaimers included on the Content. The permission to re-copy does not allow for incorporation of any substantial portion of the Content in any work or publication, whether in hard copy, electronic or any other form or for commercial purposes.