Mr. Wang was the Marketing Manager at Technology Company A. On May 24th, 2022 (a Saturday), at 8:56 PM, the company issued a notice via WeChat informing Mr. Wang that he was required to travel to Beijing for work the following day. At 9:56 AM on May 25th, Mr. Wang responded stating, “I wasn’t feeling well last night and went to bed early without checking my WeChat.” He then explained that due to personal matters at home, he couldn’t make it to Beijing. The company considered this action by Mr. Wang as a violation of their internal regulations which prohibit ignoring or evading cooperation requests from colleagues, and thus imposed a severe warning and deducted 4 points from his record. Subsequently, the company terminated Mr. Wang’s employment contract on the grounds that his repeated violations had cumulatively met the conditions for dismissal outlined in the company policy.
In December 2020, Mr. Wang filed for labor arbitration seeking compensation for the termination of his employment contract from Technology Company A, but his claim was initially unsupported. Following this, he brought the case to a first-instance court. The court ruled that Technology Company A should pay the severance compensation.
Upon appeal, both parties took the case to a second-instance court. After reviewing the matter, the appellate court opined that company rules and regulations typically regulate behaviors during working hours and within the workplace, and should not be extended to cover off-duty rest periods outside regular work hours. Mr. Wang did not receive the company’s instructions regarding overtime work and travel during the weekend due to reasonable circumstances, which cannot be equated with neglecting real-time directives or collaborative demands during work hours.
Moreover, according to China’s Labor Law, except under statutory circumstances, employers can only extend working hours after reaching an agreement with employees. This means that workers have the right to refuse requests for overtime work. In this instance, when the company penalized Mr. Wang for failing to travel for work, deeming it as evasion of colleague collaboration, the court viewed this punishment as inappropriate since it effectively punished Mr. Wang for refusing overtime. The court further held that Mr. Wang did not repeatedly violate company rules and thus Technology Company A was obligated to pay the severance compensation for the termination of the employment contract.
Legal interpretation: In the digital age, many employers use platforms such as work WeChat groups, QQ groups, and emails to issue work orders to employees during their rest time. Even if these tasks require mere replies or simple online operations, they undoubtedly infringe upon the employee’s right to rest.
Employers should fully respect and protect the employees’ right to rest, refraining from issuing work orders or requirements during non-working hours. If there are exceptional circumstances or emergencies, employers may agree beforehand with employees to keep communication devices accessible for urgent work directives. In such standby situations, appropriate compensation should be provided.
In conclusion, the court decided that Mr. Wang’s situation did not warrant the penalties imposed by Technology Company A, and thus upheld the ruling that the company must provide the compensation for the termination of his employment contract.
