In private, the leader "old lady" was fired, and employees were compensated

Employee Zhang was dismissed by the company unilaterally. One of the reasons was that the company leaders were "old lady" when they talked with colleagues. The case was arbitral and sued to the court. A few days ago, the People's Court of Daxing District, Beijing, was tried to determine that the company's dismissal of the labor contract was violated, and the company was judged that the company had paid Zhang Mou to lift the labor contract for more than 27,000 yuan.

In February 2020, Zhang entered a company manager of a company, and the company issued the "Employee Manual" to him. The "Employee Manual" combines the severity of the circumstances of various disciplinary behaviors of employees, and divides punishment measures from light to heavy to: A, B, and C.

In February 2021, when Zhang arranged for the department with his subordinates with his subordinates, he said: "I think (I think (lunar month) 30) is very important. The chat history was sent to the company's WeChat group by a screenshot of Xiaohu. The "old lady" called Zhang in WeChat's private chat refers to the company's legal representative Li.

On March 11, 2021, Zhang and Xiao Huyin asked for a physical conflict. The public security organs imposed an administrative detention for 3 days of administrative detention. The next day, Zhang received a notice from the labor contract from the company.

The notice stated that Zhang and Xiao Hu had a serious language and physical conflict. According to the relevant provisions of the "Employee Manual", they should be fired immediately without any compensation.

The notice also stated that in the process of communicating with his subordinates, Zhang, "improperly used remarks and names for the company's superior leaders", "the literacy and majors that one qualified manager should have ... Class B in "Employee Manual". The company notified Zhang to formally terminate the labor contract from March 12, 2021, and did not pay economic compensation.

Zhang was not convinced, applying for labor arbitration, and asked the company to pay illegal liberation of labor contract compensation. The arbitration believes that the company's termination of behavior is illegal, and the payment of 30,000 yuan in compensation of the labor contract is decided to lift illegal labor contracts. The company did not accept it and sued to the court.

During the lawsuit, the focus of the dispute between the two parties was finally concentrated in whether the company could be fired because Zhang was called "old lady" in a WeChat private chat.

The court believes that the key to judging whether the company's private representative "old lady" fired in private is the key to the legal representative "old lady". Degree. In this regard, Zhang's work and status should be combined, Zhang's speech content, the environment of Zhang's speech, the cause and scope of publishing, whether Zhang's remarks cause adverse effects and its severity.

From the perspective of work, Zhang's job is not a senior managers, and the authority, influence and influence of his speech are relatively small. Judging from the content of its remarks, the term "old lady" does not have the meaning of derogation or insult. The gender and age of the company's legal representatives in combination with the word is not enough to determine that Zhang's use of the word "old lady" is called the company's legal representatives with disrespect or insult.

Judging from the context of Zhang's corresponding remarks, he was communicating alone with Xiaohu at that time. The atmosphere of the two sides was relatively loose and the words were more casual. He severely punished Zhang's corresponding behavior. The scope of Zhang's corresponding remarks is limited to it and Xiaohu, which is a relatively private scope. When the relevant remarks have not been made public, the scope of influence is extremely limited. Send a screenshot of the corresponding chat content to the company's WeChat group to expand the corresponding impact. Zhang has no fault, and the corresponding responsibility should not be borne by Zhang.

The court believes that according to the company’s "Employee Handbook", Zhang’s corresponding behavior did not reach the level of serious violations of the rules and regulations, and the company could not prove that Zhang's corresponding remarks had adverse effects. The corresponding remarks to the termination of the labor contract are obviously insufficient.

Combined with the above situation, the court judged that the company paid Zhang Mou's illegal termination of more than 27,000 yuan in compensation for labor contracts. After the sentence, Zhang and the company obeyed the judgment and did not appeal.

Source: Workers Daily

- END -