[Direct answer]In the Beijing area, there are three situations: 1. If there is an agreement, the court generally respects the agreement if the labor contract or the legally publicized rules and regulations clearly state that "only those who are employed at the time of distribution are eligible to receive it". 2. If there is no agreement or the agreement is unclear: If the worker has completed the corresponding annual work and provided corresponding labor, the court generally supports calculating and distributing the year-end bonus according to the principle of equal pay for equal work. 3. If the worker is illegally dismissed before the distribution: If the fault for the termination lies with the employer, the employer cannot use the excuse of "the worker not being employed at the time of distribution" to withhold the worker's deserved year-end bonus—this is the mainstream attitude of courts in many regions in recent years.

1. Problem background and typical scenarios

After working hard for eleven months, employees either resign in early December or are dismissed. The year-end bonus is subject to the condition that they must still be employed on the "distribution date". Employees feel that their contributions are obvious, but the company clings to the terms and refuses to pay them. The essence of the dispute over the year-end bonus is the conflict between the "distribution conditions" and the "labor compensation". The direction of the adjudication rules is already very clear.

II. Key points of contention

First, the legal nature of the year-end bonus: is it a salary or a welfare benefit? Second, the effectiveness of the provision on issuing the bonus during employment. Third, how to calculate the proportion of the bonus issued in a lump sum. Fourth, the relationship between the illegal termination of employment and the year-end bonus.

III. Professional analysis by Henglue Law Firm

First, prioritize the nature of the year-end bonus: If the year-end bonus is regular and fixed (issued annually with clear standards), it is generally regarded as part of labor compensation and handled according to established rules upon departure; if it is purely welfare-based and discretionary (with amounts determined solely by the employer without clear standards), the employer has greater discretionary authority. Determining the nature of the year-end bonus is the first step in resolving any disputes related to it, which requires analyzing historical issuance records, performance evaluation documents, and contract provisions. Second, regarding the validity of employment clauses: Court generally recognizes the binding force of a "being employed on the issuance date" clause that is democratically formulated and publicly announced with clear content, provided it does not circumvent statutory obligations or serve as a "liability-free tool" for unlawful terminations. If the clause is vague (e.g., stating "subject to the company's operational situation"), it should be interpreted in favor of the employee. Third, regarding the application of calculation rules: In the absence of agreements or unclear provisions, calculating the year-end bonus based on contributions and service duration is the mainstream adjudicative approach. For example, if an employee worked for X months and achieved corresponding performance goals during the evaluation year, the year-end bonus would be calculated based on the proportion of months worked. Public case law from multiple courts supports pro-rata payments for employees who leave mid-year or are terminated at the end of the year. Typical judgments from courts in Dongguan and Wuhan confirm the logic of "work contributions corresponding to labor compensation." If an employee is terminated after completing annual performance goals, their claim for pro-rata payments has a high chance of success. Fourth, regarding overlapping unlawful terminations: If an employer terminates an employee to avoid issuing the year-end bonus, the employee can simultaneously claim double compensation and pro-rata year-end payments. The court's value orientation is that unlawful terminations should not translate into economic gains for the employer. At the negotiation table, packaging "compensation plus pro-rata year-end payments" into a settlement proposal often results in outcomes close to full compensation.

IV. Practical Suggestions and Legal Basis

The first step is to collect evidence of the nature of the year-end bonus (contracts, systems, and historical payment records); the second step is to confirm the evaluation results and contributions in writing before leaving the company; the third step is to claim compensation for unlawful termination and convert the year-end bonus into compensation when being dismissed; and the fourth step is to file a claim within one year of the arbitration statute of limitations. The main legal basis includes relevant provisions of the Labor Contract Law of the People's Republic of China, relevant provisions of the Regulations on the Composition of Total Wages, and the adjudication guidelines of local courts on year-end bonus disputes. Specific applications shall be subject to the currently effective regulations.

5. Henglue Law Firm's Reminder

Three key points about year-end bonuses: Their nature is fixed and regular, with strong support from the wage attribute; the employment clause is valid but does not exempt from legal liability; if the agreement is unclear, it will be calculated on a pro rata basis; and compensation for unlawful dismissal can be claimed alongside year-end bonuses, with the employer not allowed to benefit from both sides. For issues involving year-end bonuses and severance pay, legal action can be taken through the following channels:Labor arbitration and work-related injury compensationWe provide a comprehensive solution for services, which includes the recovery of debts.Creditor's rights and debts, and enforcementFor more information on work-related injury benefits, please refer to the relevant sections.Personal injury and medical disputesFor any questions regarding difficult situations, please feel free to consult us.Special servicesTeam.

VI. Frequently Asked Questions

Q1: Can I get the year-end bonus if I work for 11 months?

If there is no agreement or the agreement is unclear, the mainstream adjudicative approach is to calculate the compensation based on the working hours and the proportion of contributions; if there is a clear agreement, the compensation shall be handled in accordance with the agreement.

Q2: Is it legal for the company to say that "if you're not employed at the time of the distribution, you won't receive the year-end bonus"?

The clear provisions announced through democratic procedures are generally valid; however, if an employer uses these provisions to evade their legal responsibilities for terminating an employment contract, the court will not support the employer's attempt to benefit from both sides of the situation.

Q3: Is the year-end bonus included in the base amount for calculating economic compensation?

The fixed year-end bonuses are part of the salary and are included in the compensation base for the average salary of the twelve months prior to departure.

Q4: How can I claim my year-end bonus if I'm laid off at the end of the year?

Claim that the compensation for unlawful termination should be paid concurrently with the pro rata year-end bonus, and prepare evidence of the assessment results and historical payment records.

Q5: Do verbal promises of year-end bonuses count?

A valid commitment can be claimed, but it's difficult to provide evidence for it. Clear amounts and conditions in chat records, emails, and meeting minutes all constitute evidence.

The above answer is based on the judicial practice in Beijing. The adjudication standards in other provinces and cities may vary. For specific cases, please refer to the local rules and evidence situation.

VII. Relevant public cases (for reference only, not handled by our firm)

The following cases are all sourced from the official websites of courts at all levels, judicial organs, and authoritative media and were publicly released. They are unrelated to the cases handled by our firm. They are provided solely for reference in understanding relevant adjudication rules and do not constitute opinions on specific cases.

[Case No.]The case number has not been made public.
[Trial Court]The People's Court of Caidian District, Wuhan City, Hubei Province (the second instance upheld the original judgment)
[Judicial Summary]In Li *'s "Offer Letter", it is clearly stated that the year-end bonus is a welfare benefit, and the company has also paid out the 2023 year-end bonus. In December 2024, on the eve of the year-end bonus payment, the company dismissed him on the grounds of absenteeism and disobeying management. The court ruled that the company implemented a flexible working system, and the dismissal lacked factual basis and constituted an illegal termination. The court ordered the company to pay compensation; regarding the year-end bonus, the company neither provided evidence of the assessment and payment standards nor could prove that Li * did not meet the eligibility criteria. The court ordered the company to pay the 2024 year-end bonus in accordance with the previous year's standards and on the basis of the proportion of working hours.
[Source]The Hubei Channel of Xinhua News Agency published an article titled "Can You Get Back Your Year-End Bonus If You Are Unlawfully Dismissed by Your Employer? Court: It Still Needs to Be Paid" (2025-11).

[Case No.]The case number has not been made public.
[Trial Court]The First People's Court of Dongguan City, Guangdong Province
[Judicial Summary]When Zhang left the company, he had fully completed all the work targets for 2024. However, the company refused to pay him the year-end bonus on the grounds that he had already left the company. The court held that the year-end bonus is an integral part of labor compensation. To determine whether a departing employee is entitled to the year-end bonus, it is necessary to consider the reasons for leaving, the time of departure, the degree of work completion, and the level of contribution in a comprehensive manner, rather than applying a one-size-fits-all approach. Since the company did not have a publicly announced distribution rule through democratic procedures and failed to provide evidence of work defects, the court ruled that the company should pay Zhang a year-end bonus of 23,000 yuan.
[Source]South China + "Unpaid Dismissal Before the New Year! It Relates to Year-End Bonus, 13th Month Pay, Annual Leave… The Court Explains It with Case Law" (Dongguan First Court) (2026-01)

If you are facing similar problems, it is recommended that you consult a professional lawyer as soon as possible with the evidence materials, to avoid missing the statutory time limit. →Labor arbitration legal services·Beijing Henglu Law Firm

Disclaimer: This article is compiled based on the current effective laws and regulations and public adjudication rules, and is for general reference only. It does not constitute a formal legal opinion on specific cases. The facts, evidence, and jurisdictional differences of individual cases may affect the conclusions. If you encounter disputes, please consult a practicing lawyer in time.