4月22日,上海市總工會(huì)“申工社”披露一起案件。
A Shanghai court has ruled that an employee's heated remark about quitting during a salary dispute constituted a valid oral resignation, rejecting his claim for wrongful termination compensation.
2021年6月25日,小李與公司經(jīng)理協(xié)商薪資待遇時(shí),經(jīng)理明確拒絕漲薪,雙方言語(yǔ)產(chǎn)生爭(zhēng)執(zhí),小李一氣之下說(shuō)“不漲工資這活干不了”。
The case, disclosed on Wednesday by the city's federation of trade unions, involved a worker surnamed Li who clashed with his manager on June 25, 2021, after being denied a pay raise, saying in frustration that he could not continue under the current salary.
隨后6月26日、27日,小李均正常到崗工作,公司也未提出異議。期間,公司廠長(zhǎng)找小李核實(shí)情況時(shí),他也表示:“工資這么低,這活怎么干?”
6月27日下班后,公司經(jīng)理召開(kāi)員工會(huì)議,當(dāng)眾宣稱小李已主動(dòng)辭職。小李覺(jué)得這是經(jīng)理對(duì)自己的報(bào)復(fù),認(rèn)為自己既沒(méi)有遞交過(guò)任何書(shū)面辭職手續(xù),也沒(méi)提出過(guò)口頭辭職,所以并沒(méi)有在意,也沒(méi)有爭(zhēng)吵。6月28日,小李照常通勤到公司上班,卻被公司單方告知已離職、無(wú)需在崗。
小李當(dāng)即與公司經(jīng)理溝通理論,明確否認(rèn)辭職。但經(jīng)理態(tài)度強(qiáng)硬,告知小李已經(jīng)沒(méi)有他的崗位了。事后,公司單方出具離職證明,將離職原因標(biāo)注為勞動(dòng)者辭職。
He reported to work as usual over the next two days and reiterated his dissatisfaction when questioned. At a staff meeting two days later on June 27, the manager announced that Li had resigned, drawing no public objection from him. When Li returned the following day, he was told his employment had ended, and the company later issued a separation certificate citing voluntary resignation.
2021年7月9日,小李向勞動(dòng)人事?tīng)?zhēng)議仲裁委員會(huì)申請(qǐng)仲裁,要求公司支付違法解除勞動(dòng)合同賠償金107240元、通勤費(fèi)1100元。
該仲裁委員會(huì)裁決公司支付交通費(fèi)600元,駁回小李其他仲裁請(qǐng)求。
小李不服將公司訴至法院,請(qǐng)求公司支付賠償金107240元、通勤費(fèi)1100元。
Li applied for labor arbitration on July 9, 2021, seeking over 100,000 yuan in compensation and commuting expenses. The panel awarded partial transport costs but rejected the compensation claim, prompting him to take the case to court.
法院判決:口頭辭職有效
一審核心爭(zhēng)議為小李系主動(dòng)口頭辭職,還是公司違法辭退。法院查實(shí),小李因薪資問(wèn)題向經(jīng)理口頭表示不干了,廠長(zhǎng)核實(shí)情況時(shí)其未否認(rèn),公司開(kāi)會(huì)通報(bào)其辭職,小李在場(chǎng)亦未提出異議。
依據(jù)公司經(jīng)員工學(xué)習(xí)確認(rèn)的規(guī)章制度,口頭辭職具備效力,公司據(jù)此出具離職證明合規(guī)。小李后續(xù)正常到崗,不影響口頭辭職事實(shí)的認(rèn)定。
小李主張公司違法解除、索要賠償金,缺乏事實(shí)與法律依據(jù),法院不予支持。
The court found that his remark during the dispute — combined with his failure to deny the resignation when confirmed by management and announced publicly — constituted a valid oral resignation under company rules. His continued attendance at work, it said, did not negate that expressed intent.
最終一審判決:駁回小李全部訴訟請(qǐng)求。
二審法院經(jīng)審理查明,案件事實(shí)與一審判決認(rèn)定的內(nèi)容完全一致,本案爭(zhēng)議焦點(diǎn)依舊是小李是否屬于主動(dòng)辭職。小李未能提供有效證據(jù)證明自身被違法辭退的主張,同時(shí)公司規(guī)章制度明確規(guī)定員工可書(shū)面或口頭提出辭職,小李在廠長(zhǎng)核實(shí)辭職事宜、公司召開(kāi)全體員工會(huì)議通報(bào)其辭職時(shí),均未作出否認(rèn)表示,一審法院據(jù)此認(rèn)定其口頭辭職成立并無(wú)不當(dāng)。
二審法院判決駁回小李的上訴,維持原判,該判決為終審判決。
Both the trial and appellate courts concluded that Li failed to prove unlawful dismissal, with the higher court upholding the original ruling as final.
“申工社”指出,職場(chǎng)中, 由于一氣之下的言論因小失大的案例不在少數(shù):
上海某汽車銷售公司員工雷某,與總經(jīng)理協(xié)商解約未果發(fā)生爭(zhēng)執(zhí),總經(jīng)理當(dāng)場(chǎng)明確要求其次日不用再來(lái)上班。事后總經(jīng)理雖微信否認(rèn)辭退,但法院認(rèn)定該言論屬于職務(wù)行為,已構(gòu)成違法解除勞動(dòng)合同。一二審均判決公司支付違法解除賠償金72232元。
彭某是上海某公司員工。2020年某天,老板爭(zhēng)吵時(shí)辱罵員工“滾”,員工未到崗上班,公司隨后以曠工為由將其解雇。二審法院判決:老板言語(yǔ)指令模糊、事后未要求員工返崗,公司解除勞動(dòng)合同屬于違法解除,支付員工違法解除賠償金15.98萬(wàn)元。
The trade union warned that offhand remarks made in the heat of workplace disputes can carry lasting consequences. In contrast to Li's case, where his own words were deemed to reflect a clear intent to resign, other disputes have hinged on employers' statements.
In one case, a manager told an employee not to return after a disagreement. This was later deemed an unlawful dismissal despite subsequent denials, with the court ordering compensation of over 70,000 yuan.
In another case, an employer's instruction to "get out" was ruled too ambiguous to justify termination, awarding the employee nearly 160,000 yuan in compensation.
來(lái)源:中國(guó)青年報(bào) 申工社 中國(guó)裁判文書(shū)網(wǎng)
跟著China Daily
精讀英語(yǔ)新聞
“無(wú)痛”學(xué)英語(yǔ),每天20分鐘就夠!
![]()
特別聲明:以上內(nèi)容(如有圖片或視頻亦包括在內(nèi))為自媒體平臺(tái)“網(wǎng)易號(hào)”用戶上傳并發(fā)布,本平臺(tái)僅提供信息存儲(chǔ)服務(wù)。
Notice: The content above (including the pictures and videos if any) is uploaded and posted by a user of NetEase Hao, which is a social media platform and only provides information storage services.