The hottest employee was fired for missing a meeti

Employees were fired for missing a meeting, and a packaging factory in Guangxi was awarded a compensation of 42000

release date: Source: Guangxi editor: Yu Jia browsing times: 3471 copyright and disclaimer

core tip: two years ago, Wang, a post-80s man, was "fired" by the unit because he did not attend a meeting organized by the unit. Is it reasonable for employees to be "fired" for violating labor discipline, or is the unit "too willful"? The case was tried by Nanning municipal courts at two levels. The court of first instance held that the unit's speculation of Wang was reasonable and legal, and there was no need to bear responsibility. But when it came to the court of second instance, "the plot reversed", the court of second instance held that the unit abused its power "too willful" and had to pay 42000 yuan as liquidated damages for Wang's illegal termination of labor relations

[China Packaging News] two years ago, Wang, a post-80s man, was "fired" by his unit because he did not attend a meeting organized by his unit. Inexplicably lost his job, Wang first applied for labor arbitration, and then twice sued the unit to the court, requiring the unit to pay 42000 yuan of compensation for illegal termination of labor relations. Is it reasonable for employees to be "fired" for violating labor discipline, or is the unit "too willful"? The case was tried by Nanning municipal courts at two levels. The court of first instance held that the unit's speculation of Wang was reasonable and legal, and there was no need to bear responsibility. But when it came to the court of second instance, "the plot reversed", the court of second instance held that the unit abused its power "too willful" and had to pay 42000 yuan as liquidated damages for Wang's illegal termination of labor relations

incident: he was "fired" because he didn't hold a meeting

Wang is 36 years old. Seven years ago, Wang became a workshop worker in a food packaging company in Nanning (hereinafter referred to as the packaging company). Because the workers have opinions on the treatment, they appeal to the company. On April 24, 2015, the packaging company held a meeting in three batches to respond to the demands of employees on the morning, middle and evening shift. On that day, Wang's shift time was morning shift, and he didn't get off work until 4 p.m. However, the company held the morning shift employees' salary appeal reply communication meeting on the same day, but it was arranged at 3:30 p.m. when the company manager informed Wang of the meeting, Wang did not attend. As a result, the meeting was postponed to 4 p.m. because of waiting for Mr. Wang, but Mr. Wang and another colleague still failed to attend the meeting

Mingming repeatedly informed him to come to the meeting for communication, but Wang openly did not participate. Afterwards, the labor union of the packaging company sent Wang the contents of the employee's appeal response meeting negotiation that the longitudinal symmetry plane of the instrument and the axis of the sample should be in the same plane as far as possible on the morning shift of the day, and told him that if there was any appeal, it could be submitted to the labor union and then submitted to the company's management for discussion. Wang immediately put forward two demands for wages, and the chairman of the trade union of the company thought that Wang's demands were unreasonable

I thought it was over. To Wang's surprise, a few days later, he received a text message from the company to terminate his labor contract. On April 27th of that year, the packaging company informed the employees of the whole factory that it decided to terminate the labor contract with Mr. Wang from 0:00 on April 28th of that year on the grounds that Mr. Wang did not obey the factory management, the team arrangement, did not listen to the persuasion of the factory management team and the labor union, and did not attend the factory meeting on time, resulting in other colleagues and other behaviors that he did not attend the meeting for 30 minutes, which seriously violated the normal working order of the factory. Later, the company sent a text message to Wang about the content of the notice. After that, Wang didn't go to work in the company again. On May 2 of that year, the packaging company mailed the notice of dismissal to Mr. Wang

first instance: the employee had serious violations of discipline. The dismissal practice of the unit was legal.

he was only dissatisfied with the salary and raised some requirements. The company even dismissed him on the grounds of not holding a meeting. Wang believed that the company's practice was illegal to terminate the labor contract. On May 27 of that year, Mr. Wang applied to Nanning Labor Arbitration Commission for arbitration, requiring the packaging company to pay 42000 yuan of compensation for illegal termination of labor contracts, and to pay more than 10000 yuan of unemployment benefits. Nanning Labor Arbitration Commission ruled that the packaging company paid Wang's unemployment compensation for a loss of more than 10000 yuan and rejected Wang's other requests. Wang refused to accept, and sued a packaging company to the XiXiangTang District Court of Nanning, demanding that the packaging company pay 42000 yuan as compensation for the illegal termination of the labor contract. Because Wang has applied for unemployment benefits by himself, he withdrew his claim for the loss of unemployment benefits

the court of first instance held that Mr. Wang, as an activist holding the new materials forum, should participate in the meeting according to the arrangement of the unit. Wang claimed that he could not attend the meeting because his handover work was not completed. However, except Wang and another employee, other members of Wang's team attended the meeting. Later, Mr. Wang argued that he didn't attend the meeting because he had something to do at home. 3) when the batch number was greater than 50, he asked the manager for leave, but there was no evidence. Therefore, the court held that it was unreasonable for Wang not to attend the meeting. Wang's failure to attend the meeting has constituted disobedience to the work arrangement of the employer, which is in line with the serious violation of rules and regulations agreed by both parties

in this case, the packaging company terminated the labor relationship on the ground that Wang's behavior constituted a serious violation of rules and regulations, which was a legal termination. The court of first instance held that the packaging company did not need to pay compensation. Wang refused and appealed to Nanning intermediate court. Then, 35 years later, there was the final judgment of high-value metals: the unit abused its power "too willful" and compensated 42000 employees. Wang believed that he was an assembly line employee. Whether he attended the meeting that day or not did not affect the production order of the factory, and objectively did not bring any damage to the company. He only did not attend the meeting once, and another employee did not attend the meeting that day, but he was not dealt with by the termination of labor relations. It can be seen that the management of the packaging company was arbitrary. For him, it is malicious to terminate labor relations. The packaging company believes that the facts of the first instance judgment are clear and the evidence is sufficient, which should be maintained

the court of second instance held that the labor contract law stipulates the circumstances in which the employer exercises the right to terminate the labor contract due to the negligence of the worker. The corresponding clause to the circumstances of the case is "serious violation of the rules and regulations of the employer". When the employer formulates and applies its own rules and regulations to restrict the worker, it must first comply with the provisions of the law and cannot arbitrarily expand It is conducive to its own interpretation and regulations, and reduces and restricts the damage to the legitimate rights and interests of workers in disguised form. "Serious violation of the rules and regulations of the employer" according to common sense, usually refers to the workers' repeated, frequent and repeated violations of the rules and regulations of the employer, and after criticism and education, they do not change after repeated education, with great subjective malice. If the absence of a meeting is regarded as a serious violation of rules and regulations, it is obviously beyond the scope of ordinary people's social experience and understanding, and violates the basic principle of social fairness

in this case, the packaging company explained that it was far fetched to hold a meeting outside working hours after the end of the morning shift that day, not to mention that the content of the meeting was only to communicate and reply about the salary of employees. Wang's absence from the meeting was a waiver of his rights and did not affect or damage the interests of others or units. The packaging company identified Wang's absence as a serious impact on the working order of the factory and a flagrant termination of labor relations, which was obviously inconsistent with the facts and an abuse of rights. Another absent employee was not treated in the same way, which showed that the packaging company's treatment of Wang was unfair

the court of second instance then held that the termination of Wang's labor relationship by the packaging company was illegal and should pay compensation for the illegal termination of labor relationship. The court decided that on August 21, the final judgment was that the packaging company paid 42000 yuan to Wang