A female executive and a married male subordinate went out to eat, dated, and had a room together during work hours, which was discovered by the male colleague’s wife. The wife complained to the company and had a physical conflict with the female executive.
Afterwards, the company fired the female executive for serious violations. The female executive argued that she had maintained a “personal distance” of 0.46-1.22 meters from her male subordinate and did not have an intimate relationship. Both sides had different opinions and went to court!
Event Review
Ms. Shen joined a Guangdong hardware products company in 2014 and signed a written labor contract. Article 10 of the “Labor Contract” stipulates that if an employee has any of the following circumstances, the company can terminate the labor contract at any time: “(2) Stealing property, gambling, drug use, or fighting; (3) Serious dereliction of duty, embezzlement, causing significant damage to the company’s interests; (4) Seriously violating labor discipline and company rules and regulations, meeting the conditions for the company to terminate the labor contract.”
The company’s “Employee Handbook” Chapter 2, Personnel Rewards and Punishments System, Article 2, Item 3, Item 8 stipulates: those who gather to make trouble, fight, or damage the company’s reputation will be dismissed; Item 11 stipulates: those who are drunk or morally corrupt will be fired.
Since February 2023, Ms. Shen has repeatedly used work hours to take her male subordinate, Mr. Xie, out to eat, date, and open rooms, engaging in activities unrelated to work. As a manager, Ms. Shen also took advantage of the convenience of managing attendance to privately help Mr. Xie change his clock-in records. And from Ms. Shen’s attendance records, she was late and absent multiple times. Ms. Shen also used her authority to help Mr. Xie increase his salary, from 10,000 yuan per month to 15,000 yuan.
On May 30, 2023, Mr. Xie’s wife complained to the company that Ms. Shen violated public order and good customs and had an improper relationship with Mr. Xie, and had a fierce fight with Ms. Shen. Later, the public security organ issued an “Administrative Penalty Decision”, stating that Mr. Xie’s wife intentionally pulled Ms. Shen, causing her to fall and hit the wall, and decided to impose a fine of 300 yuan on Mr. Xie’s wife.
On June 8, 2023, the company delivered a “Notice” of termination of the labor relationship to Ms. Shen, stating that on May 30, 2023, Ms. Shen had a fierce fight with Mr. Xie’s wife in the company, which seriously disrupted the company’s production and operation order, and also seriously violated the relevant provisions of the “Labor Contract” and other regulations and public order and good customs.
Ms. Shen believes—
■ There is no improper relationship with Mr. Xie. Mr. Xie was going to pick up his wife to live nearby, and she used to live nearby, so she kindly took Mr. Xie to the apartment and the surrounding area to observe. Human interaction distances are divided into four types. From the video, it can be seen that she has always maintained a “personal distance” of more than half a meter to one meter from Mr. Xie, and there was no physical contact between the two parties, so it can be seen that there is no intimate relationship between the two parties.
Figure from Shen Gong She
■ There is no abuse of power to damage the company’s interests. Mr. Xie, as an employee, submitted a salary increase application. As the assistant to the general manager, she had the obligation to submit the employee’s salary increase application to the general manager, and the company’s personnel adjustments and salary system were discussed and decided by shareholders General Manager Zhang and General Manager Chen before signing and confirming, which was not something she could decide on her own.
■ There is no violation of the company’s rules and regulations such as absenteeism and lateness. First, the company has never presented the employee handbook and the company’s rules and regulations, but only required filling in the instructions on blank paper when joining the company, rather than signing directly on the employee handbook; secondly, before leaving the company, the company never said that she was absent, late, or absent, nor did she ever receive a verbal warning or a written fine notice.
■ There is no disruption of production and operation order. The above-mentioned fighting incident occurred because the company’s security guards did not fulfill their verification obligations, and she was only a victim, and there were no other behaviors that disrupted the company’s operating order, did not cause work stoppage, and did not cause losses to the operation, and the incident did not constitute a serious damage to the company’s reputation.
In summary, the company illegally terminated the contract.
In July 2023, Ms. Shen applied for arbitration, requesting the company to pay compensation for illegal termination of the labor relationship of 461,399.94 yuan. The arbitration rejected the application.
Ms. Shen was not satisfied and filed a lawsuit.
The court ruled: Ms. Shen’s improper behavior violated public order and good customs, and also violated the company’s rules and regulations
First Instance
The court, after review, believed that although Ms. Shen did not confirm the various pieces of evidence submitted by the company, she failed to provide evidence to overturn them. According to the situation description provided by Mr. Xie, he confirmed that there was an improper relationship between him and Ms. Shen, and in combination with various pieces of evidence, the company’s claims were highly credible. According to the principle of high probability of civil evidence, the court adopted the company’s claims.
Article 8 of the “General Provisions of the Civil Law of the People’s Republic of China” stipulates that “civil subjects shall not violate laws or public order and good customs when engaging in civil activities.” The principle of public order and good customs includes public order and good customs, which mainly applies to the field of civil legal acts, and also generally applies to various civil relationships, including labor relations. Any individual’s behavior should abide by the principle of public order and good customs.
Ms. Shen’s improper behavior violated social ethics and public order and good customs, and also violated the relevant provisions of the company’s “Labor Contract” and “Employee Handbook”, which is bound to have a certain adverse impact on the company’s work atmosphere and work development. The company terminated the labor contract relationship between the two parties on this basis, which is in accordance with the law.
Now Ms. Shen claims that the company illegally terminated the labor relationship, and the court does not accept it. Ms. Shen’s claim for the company to pay compensation for illegal termination of the labor relationship of 461,399.94 yuan is insufficient, and the court does not support it in accordance with the law.
Ms. Shen was not satisfied and appealed.
Second Instance
The court held that the focus of the dispute in this case was whether the company should pay Ms. Shen compensation for illegal termination of the labor contract.
First, although the time when the two parties argued and had a physical conflict was around 5:40 p.m., but in combination with Ms. Shen and Mr. Xie’s previous clock-in records, employees may have delayed work or worked overtime, the incident did disrupt the company’s operating order and the normal work of other employees.
Secondly, the recorded conversation between Mr. Xie and Ms. Shen reflected that Ms. Shen was seeking benefits for Mr. Xie at work, and Ms. Shen, as the assistant to the general manager, had a certain influence in the company, and her behavior had damaged the company’s legitimate interests. Although Ms. Shen did not recognize the evidence, she did not provide evidence to refute it.
Finally, according to the handwritten instructions of Ms. Shen, she had read and fully understood and agreed to accept the company’s rules and regulations, so the “Employee Handbook” should be followed by Ms. Shen, and at the same time, the “Labor Contract” made provisions on the circumstances under which the company could terminate the labor contract at any time.
Therefore, the company’s termination of the labor relationship with Ms. Shen is not an illegal termination, and Ms. Shen’s claim for compensation does not meet the provisions of Article 48 of the “Labor Contract Law of the People’s Republic of China”. The first instance judgment rejected Ms. Shen’s claim, and the court upheld it.
In summary, the appeal is dismissed, and the original judgment is upheld.
Source: Shen Gong She
Discover more from 自由档案馆
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.