Original title: How did the court decide that an employee who was fired for paid toileting claimed 200000 yuan from the company?

recently

The following topics are on hot search

Attract a large number of netizens

Employees of Jiangsu Nantong First Company

"Paid shit" for many times during working hours

1 hour for short and 6 hours for long

The company can't bear to dismiss him

He refused

Take the company to court

Claim compensation of more than 200000 yuan

What will the court decide

Event review: employees frequently stay in the bathroom for a long time

In June 2015, Mr. Liu joined a circuit company in Nantong as a 5S (sorting, rectification, cleaning, cleaning, literacy) specialist in the factory, responsible for the inspection of the entire factory, but not responsible for cleaning and maintenance, with a monthly income of about 10000 yuan. In April 2021, the company signed an open-ended labor contract with Mr. Liu.

From February 2 to February 23, 2023, Mr. Liu will stay in the company's bathroom frequently and for a long time. The cumulative time of the day will be more than one hour and more than six hours. The company found that, according to the relevant management system of the company, Liu's behavior seriously violated labor discipline and unit rules and regulations. After the interview with Liu, the company sent the Notice of Termination of Labor Contract, decided to terminate the labor contract signed by both parties on February 24, 2023, and sent the notice to the trade union committee of the company. On March 3, Liu went through the resignation procedures.

In August 2023, Mr. Liu initiated labor arbitration and asked the company to pay economic compensation of more than 200000 yuan. Liu filed a lawsuit to the court for failing to obtain support.

The court ruled that the company's termination of labor relations was legal

During the court hearing, Liu thought that his stay in the bathroom was due to his personal physiological needs and daily inspection needs at work. The company dismissed him for serious violation of labor discipline or the rules and regulations of the unit.

The court found out after hearing that according to the company's monitoring video statistics, Mr. Liu stayed in the bathroom 11 times for a long time in February 2023, with each stay ranging from 31 minutes to 3 hours and 5 minutes. The daily stay time is at least 1 hour and 22 minutes, and at most 6 hours and 21 minutes.

The company has formulated such management systems as Attendance and Vacation Management System, Violation and Disciplinary Action Handling System, etc. According to the regulations, if an employee leaves his post without permission for more than one hour but less than two hours during working hours, he or she will be regarded as absenteeism for half a day, and if he or she is absent for more than two hours, he or she will be regarded as absenteeism for one day. The duration is accumulated on a monthly basis. Absenteeism for three consecutive days in a month or for four days in three months is a serious violation of work discipline. In case of serious violation of work discipline, the labor contract of the person directly responsible shall be terminated. These management systems have been published on the company's internal website, and Liu has clicked to read them. Among them, the "System for Handling Violations" is also an annex to the "Labor Contract", which is signed and confirmed by Mr. Liu.

The court held that normal going to the bathroom should be on the go and on the go, and a short stay in the bathroom does not constitute leaving the post without permission. However, Mr. Liu stayed in the bathroom for a long time, which was obviously beyond the scope of reasonable and normal physiological needs, and also obviously beyond the scope of his job responsibilities. And Liu failed to submit the work log and other relevant evidence to prove that he stayed in the bathroom for a long time to perform his duties. Accordingly, Mr. Liu's long-time stay in the bathroom constituted absence without permission.

The court held that according to the rules and regulations of the defendant company, Liu was deemed to be absent from work for 6 days in total, and the company had the right to terminate the labor relationship with Liu according to its rules and regulations. In addition, the company also delivered the Notice of Cancellation of Labor Contract to the labor union to perform the legal notification procedure.

Therefore, it is legal for the company to terminate the labor relationship with Liu, and Liu's request for the company to pay compensation is not supported by the court.

The judge said that the employees seriously violated the rules and regulations

Under the legal premise, the employer has the right to independently formulate rules and regulations on all aspects of its operation and management according to its own needs. This is not only the need to ensure the normal operation of the company, standardize management and operational autonomy, but also the legal obligation to protect the legitimate rights and interests of workers. In this case, the Handling System for Violations of Rules and Discipline was formulated by the defendant company in accordance with laws and democratic procedures and publicized to employees through the company's internal website, and it was clearly agreed in the labor contract signed by both parties that Liu has the obligation to pay attention to the company's rules and regulations and strictly abide by them.

In order to protect the rights and interests of workers to the maximum extent, the employer can unilaterally terminate the labor contract only under specific circumstances, and there are strict restrictions and procedures. According to Article 39 of the Labor Contract Law of China, the employee is proved not to meet the employment conditions during the probation period; Seriously violating the rules and regulations of the employing unit; Serious dereliction of duty or engaging in malpractice for selfish ends, causing major damage to the employing unit; The laborer establishes labor relations with other employers at the same time, which has a serious impact on the completion of the work tasks of his own unit, or refuses to correct after being proposed by the employer; The employer may terminate the labor contract in six cases, such as making the other party enter into or change the labor contract against the true intention by means of fraud, coercion or taking advantage of the other party's difficulties, resulting in the invalidation of the labor contract, and the worker being investigated for criminal responsibility according to law. In this case, Mr. Liu spent a long time "toileting with pay", and his behavior seriously violated the rules and regulations of the employer. Therefore, the company can unilaterally terminate the labor contract according to law.

Reminder:

Although employees have the right to rest and privacy

But it does not mean that it can be "abused" without limitation

Reasonably arrange personal time

Abide by the company's rules and regulations

It is the basic quality of every worker

It's the same as being fired after leaving the post to go to the toilet, but the court's verdict is different——

Dismissed by the company after taking off work and going to the toilet for three minutes

Court: illegal termination of labor relations

Li, an employee, had to go to the toilet for three minutes after leaving his post due to stomachache. A food company dismissed him on the grounds of "leaving his post during working hours without authorization and violating rules and regulations". Mr. Li believed that his departure did not violate the company's discipline, and that the company's termination of labor relations was illegal, so he asked the company to pay compensation for illegal termination. Recently, the Beijing News reporter learned that the People's Court of Shunyi District, Beijing, held a court session to hear the case and decided that a food company should pay more than 60000 yuan to Li for the illegal termination of labor relations.

Being expelled from the toilet while on duty

Li was originally an employee of a food company, engaged in the work of fire control center controller. The fire control center controller is a special post. According to the relevant regulations of Beijing Shunyi District Emergency Management Bureau, the enterprise central control room should be on duty 7 × 24 hours a day. The person on duty in the company's fire control center room shall not leave his post, sleep or work after drinking. If he/she needs to leave his/her post for some reason, he/she must be approved by the leader on duty before leaving his/her post, and can only leave after other qualified personnel have arrived.

Accordingly, the food company made special provisions for the fire control central control post, which is different from the general post, that is, "if the employees involved in the company's safety critical departments (including but not limited to the central control room) are found to be off the post by the superior industry competent department due to supervision, one occurrence will be deemed as a serious violation of the company's rules and regulations, and the company has the right to terminate the labor contract". Based on the particularity of the post, the food company also conducted special training for the watchmen in the fire control center room.

On November 15, 2022, Mr. Li, Mr. Zeng and Mr. Yao will be on duty in two monitoring rooms of the company. Mr. Li and Mr. Yao will be the main shift of the two monitoring rooms respectively, and Mr. Zeng will be the mobile personnel. On duty, Mr. Li went to the bathroom due to stomach discomfort.

On November 21, 2022, a food company issued a Notice of Termination of Labor Relations to Mr. Li, part of which reads: "Mr. Li, on November 16, 2022, the Beijing Municipal Emergency Bureau's Early Warning and Testing Center issued the Daily Work Report on Safety Risk Testing in High risk Industries, which criticized our company's staff on duty in the central control room at 11:43:19 on November 15, 2022. It is verified that you are on duty and will be off duty from 11:42:16 to 11:44:55 on November 15, 2022. In view of the above facts, according to the Company's Regulations on Attendance Management, your behavior is a serious violation of the Company's rules and regulations, and the Company will officially terminate the labor relationship with you on November 21, 2022. "

Mr. Li believed that his departure did not violate the company's discipline, and that the company's termination of labor relations was illegal, so he asked the company to pay compensation for illegal termination.

During the trial, Li claimed that leaving the post was not his own subjective cause, but that he needed to go to the bathroom because of his stomach discomfort. After learning that Zeng, a mobile worker, could not arrive in time, Li contacted Yao, a guard in another monitoring room, and left only when he was sure that he would be there immediately. Later, he went to the bathroom before Yao arrived because of his stomach ache, but his departure did not cause serious consequences. In addition, the company should bear the responsibility for the failure to arrange one person to be on duty, which increases the risk of leaving the post. In order to verify his claim, Li submitted the call records and WeChat chat records with Yao, in which Yao said to Li, "Go first, don't wait for me, I will go there in a moment, and leave you".

A food company argued that, according to the company's regulations, if Li has an emergency, he should first contact the mobile attendant, and if he fails to solve the problem, he should report it to the section chief or the leader of the central control room in a timely manner, and the leader will arrange the disposal. On the contrary, the evidence submitted by Mr. Li can prove that Mr. Li did not handle the emergency properly when he was ill, and that he had a malicious act of leaving his post.

The court decided that the company should pay compensation

In the lawsuit, both parties agreed that after Li left his post, the mobile personnel Zeng returned to the central control room first, then Li returned, and finally Yao returned. A food company claimed that Zeng could not move to Li's central control room after receiving Li's contact, because Zeng's point was at a certain distance from Li's central control room at that time, so he could not rush back in time.

The court believed that Mr. Li had objectively taken off his post, but on the one hand, the reason why Mr. Li had taken off his post was that he needed to go to the bathroom due to abdominal pain, and the time of taking off his post was relatively short. This behavior was a normal physiological phenomenon, not a subjective shift skipping behavior. At the same time, according to the WeChat chat records, Mr. Li contacted other colleagues many times, and had tried to avoid taking off his post, No intentional or gross negligence; On the other hand, as a food company said, Mr. Li's position involves the company's safety, so his company should fully consider all kinds of emergencies when making job arrangements. On the day of the incident, three people were on duty in two offices, while a food company arranged other tasks for mobile personnel, which is bound to increase the risk of leaving the post.

In the end, the court decided that a food company should pay more than 60000 yuan to Li for illegal termination of labor relations.

The judge said that when an employer exercises the right to terminate a labor contract on the ground that the worker has seriously violated the rules and regulations, it needs to provide evidence to prove that the worker has subjective intent or gross negligence. In this case, the laborer's dismissal for physiological reasons is not a subjective malicious act, so it does not belong to a disciplinary violation. Therefore, the company's termination of the contract is illegal, and compensation for the laborer's illegal termination of labor relations needs to be paid. For special posts, the employer should set up corresponding safeguard measures, such as allocating more mobile personnel to deal with emergencies, so as to avoid potential risks caused by workers leaving their posts for objective reasons. At the same time, the judgment of this case reminds the vast number of employers that they should be legal and reasonable in the process of exercising their management rights, adhere to people-oriented, pay attention to humanistic care, and create harmonious labor relations by caring for and respecting employees.

(Comprehensive sources: Shengong News Agency, Nantong Tongzhou District People's Court, Sina Weibo, Yangtze Evening News, Beijing News)

Worker's Daily Client [New Stories of Working] Issue 921