A former agent at China Life Insurance Company Limited's Shangluo branch, Mr. Hu, has raised concerns after receiving only half his expected salary for two months of work. The company maintains that compensation was issued according to established rules, leaving the labor dispute at an impasse.
**Employee's Account: Two Months' Work, Half a Month's Pay** Mr. Hu joined the Tongjiang Road Marketing Service Department of China Life's Shangluo branch in late October 2024 as a reserve supervisor with a promised monthly salary of 2,000 yuan. While no formal labor contract was signed, digital onboarding documents were completed. His responsibilities included daily check-ins, client visits, insurance product recommendations, and customer satisfaction surveys.
Internal records showed Mr. Hu completed 15 valid client visits in November and 16 in December. Despite expecting 4,000 yuan in total compensation (excluding recruitment bonuses), he received only 1,000 yuan—half of November's pay. "HR explained that half the salary comes from the municipal branch and half from the provincial office, but they couldn't justify December's unpaid wages," Mr. Hu stated. After resigning in December, he discovered his access was revoked and provincial HR claimed no record of his employment, complicating his wage recovery efforts.
**Company's Response: Strict 15-Visit Minimum Policy** The Tongjiang Road department's HR representative, Ms. Guo, clarified that Mr. Hu failed to meet the mandatory minimum of 15 monthly client visits—a clearly communicated benchmark. "Others in his cohort met targets and received full payment," she noted. While acknowledging the withheld November payment, she attributed it to the passage of time but emphasized that all compensation adhered to agency agreement terms (not an employment contract), which outline explicit performance rules.
Mr. Hu disputes this characterization: "Had we known missing one visit would forfeit the entire month's pay, we'd never have accepted such harsh terms." China Life's Shaanxi provincial office declined to comment, redirecting inquiries to their media team, which remained unresponsive to multiple contact attempts.
Comments