Our newspaper (reporter Qian Peijian) refused to bring a computer home to work during the Spring Festival, Xiao Zhang from a Shanghai consulting company was fired.

After labor arbitration, Xiao Zhang received a compensation of 194,000 yuan, and the company refused to accept the suit.

Recently, the Shanghai Pudong Court made a first-instance judgment on the case and found that the company’s actions to terminate the labor contract were illegal and should pay workers’ compensation of 194,000 yuan.

The company appealed against it and was later rejected.

Currently, the judgment has come into effect.

　　It turned out that before the Spring Festival of 2019, the company told him to bring his computer home for the New Year on the grounds that the customer who was in charge of maintenance might need emergency services, but was refused.

What made the company even more dissatisfied was that Xiao Zhang took a 27-day holiday during the Spring Festival, during which time he refused to contact and staged a "lost connection".

Xiao Zhang believes that during the Spring Festival holiday, he has to accompany his family and is not obliged to work, and 27 days are legitimate holidays, including 11 days during the Spring Festival holiday, plus 12 days off and 2 weekends.

　　The two sides also diverged on the determination of the lunch break. The company believes that the employee handbook clearly stipulates that the lunch break is from 12:30 to 13:00, while Xiao Zhang's half-year lunch break starts at 11:30.

In this regard, Xiao Zhang said that the company did not implement the actual work schedule in accordance with the employee manual.

　　In addition, the company claimed that Xiao Zhang had maliciously delayed work tasks.

On July 24, 2019, the company notified Xiao Zhang to arrive at the client's company at 9 am the next morning, but Zhang delayed until noon.

Xiao Zhang explained that he was off work when he received the notice. After obtaining the consent of the customer, he first returned to the company to get the computer, which caused the tardiness.

　　After the trial, the Shanghai Pudong Court held that the focus of the dispute in this case was whether the three violations proposed by the plaintiff constituted a serious violation of the rules and regulations.

Regarding the refusal to carry a computer during the Spring Festival, there are indeed situations in which work needs to be dealt with in an emergency. The plaintiff’s request is not inappropriate, but the defendant is on vacation and has no obligation to provide labor to the plaintiff. Therefore, its refusal to carry a computer does not belong Maliciously refuse to work tasks arranged by the company.

What's more, the 27-day vacation was also due to due procedures and procedures, not the "lost contact" state claimed by the plaintiff.

　　As a result, the Shanghai Pudong Court determined that the plaintiff’s claim that the defendant’s three violations did not constitute a serious violation of the rules and regulations, and that the plaintiff’s actions to terminate the labor contract on the above grounds were illegal, and therefore rejected the plaintiff’s claim.

　　The trial judge of the case believes that whether it is a small team or a large company, harmonious labor relations and team atmosphere are the basis for good development.

As managers, employers should maintain a certain degree of tolerance and goodwill to workers.

If you blindly use the rules and regulations in the company's internal regulations to demand that workers "do things right" at all times, or even use the "weapon" of expelling employees at every turn, it will inevitably lead to a certain amount of internal friction.

After all, pursuing the company's long-term development on the basis of sincere cooperation is "doing the right thing."

　　Qian Peijian