★Brief
On 8 January 2018, Fu joined a pharmaceutical company in Shanghai as a procurement specialist.
At the beginning of 2020, schools and social care institutions were all closed due to the new pandemic, and both Fu’s parents and his parents-in-law were seriously ill and could not leave their place of residence to come to Shanghai to help, thus Fu’s young son had nowhere to be looked after. So, Fu applied to the company to work from home, but the application was rejected due to the nature of the position.
From April 2020, Fu brought his son to the company at work and placed him in a non-working area and applied for free meal vouchers for him in the name of a visitor. In August 2020, the company took an inventory and found that Fu had received a total of 63 meal vouchers for his son in the name of a visitor, and concluded that Fu’s receipt of meal vouchers violated the “duty of good faith” in the employee handbook, and that the act of bringing his son to work violated the “no minors allowed in the office area” rule, which was a serious disciplinary offence, and terminated his labor contract.
Fu then applied to the labor arbitration committee, demanding that the company pay compensation for the illegal termination of the labor contract, and later appealed to the court.
★The verdict
The court heard that, according to the law, if a worker seriously violates the rules and regulations of the employer, the employer may terminate the labor contract.
As the company did not provide evidence to prove that Fu did bring his child to the office area, the court did not accept that Fu brought the child to work. However, when Fu could use his meal card to buy meals for his child, he still took the meal vouchers for his child as a visitor, which was inappropriate and contrary to the provisions of the employee handbook. The pharmaceutical company found that Fu had committed a serious breach of discipline and that it was not improper to impose a penalty of summary dismissal.
★ Comment of Lawyer Tang
Everyone has family members who need to be taken care of. During the epidemic prevention period, what should dual-income families do when they are faced with the dilemma of schools being closed, social care institutions being closed and young children being left without care? On the one hand, taking children to work takes away the parents’ energy and attention, which can affect the completion of work tasks; on the other hand, leaving young children alone at home makes it difficult for parents to concentrate on work.
We believe that the behavior of Fu in this case was indeed inappropriate and could have been handled in a more appropriate manner. For example, he could have explained the situation to the company in advance and we believe that the company would have been sympathetic to the difficulties of the employee and also Fu should not took free meal vouchers in the name of a visitor. However, in the particular circumstances of the epidemic, it is also hoped that the employer will take into account the difficulties of the employee. In this case we feel that it would have been more appropriate to give a warning to the employee and to criticize and educate him. To terminate the labor contract outright in extenuating circumstances is a little harsh.
Although this case took place at the beginning of 2020, it is still a subject that deserves careful consideration as the epidemic situation continues to be severe.
Recent Comments