Legal gas station
The male employee "strayed" into the women's toilet.
After 10 seconds, he left the toilet, but the company still terminated the labor relationship on the grounds of "serious disciplinary violations".
The man argued that he was in a stomach, and in a hurry, he made a mistake. It also doesn't take more than ten seconds before and after. Unsuccessful.
In a fit of rage, the man took the company to court. It used to be a close relationship between employees and the company, but now it is in court. Let's see what's going on.
The man, Zhang, joined a toy company more than 9 years ago. An indefinite contract has been signed.
The company's factory rules stipulate that those who gamble, scold, quarrel, and make trouble unreasonably in the factory will be sent to the public security department for handling and expelled from the factory, and Zhang signed to confirm the factory rules.
One day, Zhang entered the women's toilet for unknown reasons. Stayed for no more than 10 seconds. Then he turned around and entered the men's restroom. When Zhang entered, there were women in the women's toilet.
On the same day, the company quickly issued a notice of punishment, expelling him for violating the factory rules and regulations for being vexatious and entering the women's toilet. and issued a written notice to it.
Zhang said that he did enter the women's toilet at that time, but it was not malicious. Because of diarrhea, I was in too much of a hurry. So go wrong. And I came out as soon as I found out that I had entered the wrong place. No more than ten seconds before and after. The company's decision was clearly an illegal termination of the employment contract. In the case of fruitless communication with the company, he applied for labor arbitration. He requested that the company pay him more than 50,000 yuan in compensation for illegally terminating the labor contract, and the arbitration institution rejected his arbitration request based on various circumstances.
Subsequently, Zhang filed a lawsuit with the people's court.
After the trial, the court held that. The employee's behavior is subjectively malicious and contrary to public order and good customs. The company's dismissal is legal and does not require compensation.
The focus of this case is on whether the contract was terminated illegally.
The court's reasons are probably several points:
First, the company's disciplinary notice recorded Zhang's disciplinary violations as "violation of Article 4 of the factory regulations" and stated that he had seriously violated the factory rules and was dismissed. Zhang signed for confirmation. and checked "accept the processing decision", and Zhang argued here that he did not check it. But even if it wasn't checked by Zhang. He still signed it off. Therefore, it should be regarded as an acknowledgment of the facts described by the company. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, Zhang should bear the consequences of adducing unfavorable evidence for his claim.
Second, from the perspective of common sense, the two parties confirmed that the company's factory has been used for many years and has not been relocated or rebuilt. The toilet is not far from the workshop where Zhang works, and the men's and women's toilets are used separately. Zhang has worked in the company for nearly 9 years. The location of the toilet should be clear. Going to the wrong toilet is less likely, as he describes as unintentionally going wrong.
Zhang asserted that he did not enter the women's toilet intentionally, but accidentally entered due to diarrhea, and the court analyzed this as follows: In terms of evidence, the company's punishment notice recorded Zhang's violation of discipline as "violating Article 4 of the factory regulations (making trouble unreasonably and entering the women's toilet)", and stated that he would be dismissed for serious violations of the factory regulations. Zhang signed and checked "Accept processing decision". Even if it is not checked by the company according to his statement, it is signed by the company, so it should be regarded as an endorsement of the company's description of the facts. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, Zhang should bear the consequences of insufficient evidence for his claim. From the common sense aspect, the two sides confirmed that the company's factory has been used for many years, has not been relocated or rebuilt, and the toilet is not far from Zhang's workshop, and the men's and women's toilets are used separately. As a veteran employee who has worked in the company for nearly 9 years, Zhang should be clear about the location and situation of the toilet, and even if there are physiological reasons mentioned by him, the possibility of going to the wrong toilet is small. The reason he gave for not going to the wrong toilet without intention was not logical. The company also stated that a female employee was using the toilet at the time, and Zhang did not give a negative opinion on the content, nor did he provide rebuttal evidence. His actions were subjectively malicious, which also constituted an invasion of the privacy of female employees, which was contrary to public order and good customs. Therefore, it was determined that Zhang's deliberate entry into the women's toilet fell within the scope of "vexatiousness" stipulated in the factory regulations.
In summary, the court found that the company's termination of the employment relationship on the grounds of Zhang's serious violation of rules and regulations was not improper. Therefore, Zhang's request for the company to pay compensation for the illegal termination of the labor contract was not supported by this court.
Xiaopu has something to say:
1. This kind of thing is indeed unreasonable. Worked in a factory for 9 years. Went to the toilet countless times. How could you go to the wrong toilet because of diarrhea.
Of course, it's not out of the question. But the court has to make a judgment within the best possible circumstances. Rather than believing in special cases. Unless you have the evidence in your hand. This is the importance of evidence in civil judgments. A lot of people participate in civil judgments and do not prepare anything. When I went to the scene and lost, I felt that it was unfair here and there.
In fact, the judge did not know any of the parties. So how does the judge tell which of you is telling the truth? Rely on evidence. Whose evidence is detailed, comprehensive, and reasonable. Whoever the judge believes.
2. Under what circumstances can an employee be legally fired?
Article 39 of the Labor Contract Law The employer may terminate the labor contract if the employee falls under any of the following circumstances:
1) It is proved that they do not meet the employment conditions during the probationary period;
(2) Seriously violating the rules and regulations of the employer;
3) Serious dereliction of duty, malpractice for personal gain, causing major damage to the employer;
4) The employee establishes labor relations with other employers at the same time, which has a serious impact on the completion of the work tasks of the employer, or refuses to make corrections after being proposed by the employer;
5) The labor contract is invalid due to the circumstances specified in Item 1, Paragraph 1 of Article 26 of this Law;
6) Those who have been investigated for criminal responsibility in accordance with law.
In this case, the employer terminated the employment relationship with the employee in accordance with the provisions of Article 39, Paragraph 2 of the Labor Contract Law. is legally terminated.
3. I would like to advise those who are not very right-minded, don't be unscrupulous when they become old fritters. Even if you don't get caught 10,000 times unscrupulously, 10,000 times may pay a terrible price.