An employee handbook.
The two sides have different views.
I have been in the company for so many years.
He was expelled for 10 tea bags.
The court also sided with the company.
What's going on?
He was expelled for taking tea bags privately.
The employee took the hotel to court.
Lao Zhang worked in a five-star hotel for 18 years, and was gradually promoted from a room attendant when he first joined the company to the hotel's chief trainer. One day, Lao Zhang was found by the hotel's security guard when he was off work, and he had 10 tea bags hidden in his handbag. In this regard, Lao Zhang explained that these tea bags were left behind by guests in the rooms that had been checked out but had not been cleaned. However, Lao Zhang's failure to hand over the tea bags to the housekeeping office violated the rules and regulations of the hotel.
A week after the incident, the hotel's human resources director approached Lao Zhang to understand the situation, and Lao Zhang confessed that he deliberately put the tea bag in the handbag and let the security check to find it, in order to get the hotel to terminate the labor contract between the two parties, so that he could confirm that the hotel was illegally terminated through a lawsuit, so as to claim compensation for the illegal termination.
The hotel believes that Lao Zhang's behavior belongs to the situation of "stealing or fraud" and "misappropriating or embezzling any property of the hotel" in the employee handbook, which constitutes a particularly serious disciplinary violation. Therefore, the hotel terminated the labor contract with Lao Zhang.
Lao Zhang believes that his behavior falls under the prohibition of "eating food and drinks from guests or hotels" in the employee handbook, and meets the conditions for constituting a serious disciplinary violation. However, the employee handbook also stipulates that the labor contract can only be terminated after two serious violations of discipline, and now I only have one serious violation of discipline, and the hotel is illegally terminated.
As a result, Lao Zhang sued the hotel to the court, demanding that the hotel pay him compensation for illegally terminating the labor contract.
Court: The plaintiff knowingly committed the crime.
The claim is dismissed.
The court held that, firstly, according to common sense, there is an essential difference between the two acts of "eating" and "taking out of the hotel". In this case, the defendant hotel targeted the plaintiff Lao Zhang's act of taking tea bags out of the hotel, not Lao Zhang's behavior of "eating the food and drinks of the guests or the hotel" that Lao Zhang believed he had violatedSecondly, the hotel where Lao Zhang works is a five-star hotel, and its corporate image and service quality should meet the corresponding industry standards.
Lao Zhang has been serving in the hotel for 18 years, and should be familiar with the content of the hotel employee handbook, and as the chief trainer of the hotel, Lao Zhang should have rich work experience and noble professional quality. But Lao Zhang, knowing that taking the tea bags out of the hotel would seriously affect the image and service of the hotel, was also negligent in self-discipline and had a weak sense of responsibility, and his intentionality was quite serious.
To sum up, in accordance with the relevant regulations, the hotel determined that Lao Zhang's behavior constituted a particularly serious violation of discipline, and the facts were clear, the basis was sufficient, and there was no impropriety.
In the end, the court rejected Lao Zhang's claim that "the hotel should pay compensation for illegal termination of the labor contract". After the first-instance verdict, Lao Zhang appealed, and the second-instance judgment was upheld.
Judge: The principle of good faith.
Throughout the employment contract.
Workers shall perform their duties in good faith.
In real life, many employers stipulate in the employee handbook that if an employee defrauds or steals the company's property, it constitutes a serious violation of rules and regulations, and the company can dismiss him. However, some employees still have a fluke mentality, ignore the relevant provisions of the employee handbook, link the severity of the punishment with the value of the property, and believe that although the behavior of "taking the sheep by the hand" is improper, it will not suffer the serious punishment of terminating the labor contract, but instead make a small calculation, believing that if the employer terminates the labor contract between the two parties, the employer will constitute illegal termination.
The principle of good faith runs through the conclusion, performance, modification, rescission and termination of a labor contract, and is the cornerstone of the establishment and performance of the labor relationship between the employer and the employee in accordance with the law. For employers, in order to stabilize the order of production and operation and improve the management level, the formulation of strict rules and regulations is the exercise of management power in accordance with the law. It is not improper for the employer to punish the employee who commits petty theft in accordance with the rules and regulations of the enterprise, and it is not contrary to the law. For workers, they should perform their duties in good faith and abide by the company's rules and regulations in order to build a harmonious labor relationship.
Links to legal provisions. Labor Contract Law of the People's Republic of China
Article 3. The conclusion of a labor contract shall follow the principles of legality, fairness, equality, voluntariness, consensus, and good faith.
The labor contract concluded in accordance with the law is binding, and the employer and the employee shall perform the obligations stipulated in the labor contract.
Article 29.
The employer and the employee shall fully perform their respective obligations in accordance with the provisions of the labor contract.
Labor Law of the People's Republic of China
Article 25
The employer may terminate the labor contract if the employee falls under any of the following circumstances:
1) During the probationary period, it is proved that they do not meet the employment requirements;
2) Serious violation of labor discipline or the rules and regulations of the employer;
3) Serious dereliction of duty, malpractice for personal gain, causing major harm to the interests of the employer;
4) Those who have been pursued for criminal responsibility in accordance with law.
*:* Shanghai Jing'an District People's Court, CCTV "Today's Statement".