Recently, a man who had been employed for nearly nine years at an architectural design firm in Guangzhou, Guangdong Province, found himself in a challenging predicament after resigning. Upon his departure, he was asked to return approximately 171,100 yuan (RMB) within a span of 5 days. The company stated that this amount related to overpaid project commissions, however, the individual, Mr. Xu, contended that he had not been provided with a detailed accounting breakdown.
According to reports from November 8, Mr. Xu began his career at the company as an intern in 2017 and officially became a full-time employee the following year. He ultimately left the firm in July of this year.
The notification demanding repayment indicated that between February 2023 and July 2023, the company had pre-paid him a total of 183,900 yuan in commissions. However, after recalculating, they determined his actual entitlement was only around 12,800 yuan, thus requesting the return of the difference.
Mr. Xu emphasized that upon entering the company, he had negotiated a fixed salary. After an adjustment to the compensation structure in 2023, a new item labeled “advanced commissions” was added to his pay; still, his total income did not exhibit any significant change.
He shared his experience of having signed an acknowledgment of the company’s policies, which included annual accounting measures and terms stating that adjustments would be made upon departure. Despite this, he claimed he had never received or confirmed any results of the annual accounting, and the current demand for repayment lacked a detailed calculation. “I have no idea how they arrived at that figure,” he expressed.
Mr. Xu noted that the company had made two salary adjustments earlier in the year, in March and June. When faced with a unilateral salary reduction, he opposed the changes. After failed negotiations, he resigned in July and subsequently filed for labor arbitration. The case was presented in court on September 21, but there has yet to be a resolution.
From what he gathered, after the two rounds of salary cuts, approximately half of the 14 employees had left the company. However, only he and two other colleagues who also sought arbitration received similar repayment notifications. One of these colleagues, a senior engineer, was asked to pay back more than 270,000 yuan. As of the time of reporting, none of the three individuals had returned any funds.
In response to inquiries on November 7, the company’s representative stated that Mr. Xu was assigned fewer projects and thus his actual commissions were lower than the amounts advanced to him. The request for repayment was described as a measure in accordance with company policy. Furthermore, the representative shared that the firm was experiencing operational losses and had initially refrained from recovering the discrepancies out of concern for employee turnover, yet did not clarify whether the annual accounting results were communicated to employees.
An industry insider from Guangzhou noted that due to the lengthy settlement cycle of design projects, some firms choose to advance commissions to stabilize employee salaries, typically reconciling the overages on an annual basis. The practice of requiring a lump sum repayment of cumulative discrepancies upon resignation is quite rare.
Zhao Liangshan, a senior partner at a law firm in Shaanxi, asserted that just because an employee acknowledges company policies does not obligate them to repay amounts upon leaving. He argued that if a company has not performed annual reconciliations for years and fails to confirm accounts with employees, waiting until after resignation to make demands and settle accounts raises concerns about the fairness of their calculations and the potential shifting of business risks onto employees.
He elaborated, stating that while the agreement of “one-off adjustments” upon resignation may serve as a basis for the company’s overall accounting, the ability to reclaim funds must also consider mutual agreements, arbitration timelines, and accounting standards, rather than relying solely on this one clause to justify repayment demands from employees.
In reaction to this situation, some netizens commented, “It’s not just in design; this also happens in cost consulting companies.” Another user recounted, “We face similar issues; our salaries are deducted due to company losses.” Some expressed their sarcasm with remarks, “This society has finally seen the realization of paying to work.”