一個(gè)“滾”字，究竟是讓員工滾出辦公室，還是滾出公司？

近日，一起幾年前的勞動(dòng)爭議案在網(wǎng)上引發(fā)熱議——上海某化工企業(yè)員工小彭與公司負(fù)責(zé)人發(fā)生爭執(zhí)，他被喝斥“滾”后離開公司，隨后企業(yè)以曠工為由將其辭退。

一句情緒化的口頭指令，在法律上能否被認(rèn)定為有效的解除勞動(dòng)合同通知？

A Shanghai court has ruled that a company unlawfully dismissed an employee for absenteeism after he left work following a heated argument in which his boss told him to "get out".

老板說“滾” 員工離崗后被公司以曠工為由開除

2020年，在上海某化工企業(yè)工作的員工小彭，因工作安排與領(lǐng)導(dǎo)發(fā)生爭執(zhí)。隨后，他向公司負(fù)責(zé)人反映情況，卻在交談過程中再次爆發(fā)沖突，負(fù)責(zé)人一怒之下對(duì)小彭說了一個(gè)“滾”字，小彭隨即離開了公司。

The dispute began in 2020 when an employee surnamed Peng clashed with management over work arrangements. During the confrontation, the company head angrily shouted "gun" ("get out"), prompting Peng to leave the workplace.

幾天后，小彭的妻子找到公司負(fù)責(zé)人，詢問能否讓丈夫回來上班。負(fù)責(zé)人表示，當(dāng)時(shí)說的也是氣話，但至于是否能夠返崗，需要“再考慮考慮”。

然而沒過多久，公司以小彭離崗多日、連續(xù)曠工為由，解除了雙方的勞動(dòng)合同。

Days later, Peng's wife contacted the company to ask whether he could return to work. The manager admitted the remark had been made in anger, but gave no clear response.

The company later fired Peng for repeated absence from work.

小彭申請(qǐng)勞動(dòng)仲裁，要求公司支付違法解除勞動(dòng)合同賠償金159800元，但仲裁機(jī)構(gòu)未予支持。小彭不服，向法院提起訴訟。

一審法院審理認(rèn)定，公司負(fù)責(zé)人所說的“滾”，無證據(jù)證明是“滾出公司”的意思，小彭不上班構(gòu)成曠工，主張賠償金依據(jù)不足。小彭不服一審判決，上訴至上海市第一中級(jí)人民法院。

After initially losing in arbitration and at a lower court, Peng won on appeal at the Shanghai First Intermediate People's Court.

二審判決：員工不構(gòu)成曠工公司違法解除勞動(dòng)合同

二審?fù)徶校p方圍繞公司負(fù)責(zé)人說的“滾”字含義展開了辯論。法官在庭審中重點(diǎn)詢問，從雙方發(fā)生爭執(zhí)，到公司與小彭解除勞動(dòng)合同期間，公司是否與小彭就上班問題做過溝通？

公司方代表承認(rèn)，在此期間，公司沒有就“滾”字作出解釋，也沒有通知員工回來上班。

The court found the manager's remark was open to different interpretations. While the company argued it meant "leave the office", Peng understood it as "leave the company". Judges also noted that the company never contacted him to return to work.

法官審理認(rèn)為，公司負(fù)責(zé)人當(dāng)時(shí)說的“滾”字，其含義確實(shí)存在爭議和分歧。負(fù)責(zé)人稱“滾”是“滾出辦公室”，而小彭理解“滾”是“滾出單位”。小彭妻子到公司與老板交涉時(shí)，表達(dá)了丈夫繼續(xù)上班的意愿，但公司并未要求其返崗。

負(fù)責(zé)人讓員工“滾”之后，究竟是否還要求員工繼續(xù)上班，意思并不明確。因此，小彭在家等候公司繼續(xù)指示的情況下，不構(gòu)成曠工。

二審法院認(rèn)為，小彭主張判令公司支付違法解除勞動(dòng)合同賠償金159800元的訴訟請(qǐng)求，依法應(yīng)予支持。

The court ruled that Peng's absence did not constitute absenteeism and ordered the company to pay 159,800 yuan in compensation for unlawful dismissal.

法官提示：企業(yè)日常管理須依法依規(guī)、規(guī)范言行

該案審結(jié)五年后，近期又在網(wǎng)上引發(fā)了廣泛關(guān)注，也反映了公眾對(duì)職場公平、勞動(dòng)者權(quán)益保護(hù)問題的高度關(guān)注。

對(duì)此，主審法官蔡建輝提醒，企業(yè)在日常管理中要依法依規(guī)行事，“企業(yè)頒布的規(guī)章制度，涉及到勞動(dòng)者切身利益的內(nèi)容，須經(jīng)過民主程序。對(duì)管理者來說，在日常管理中，要規(guī)范言行，依法進(jìn)行管理，否則就可能承擔(dān)不利后果。”

The case, recently revived in online discussions, has struck a chord with many for highlighting tensions over workplace management and employee rights. Presiding judge Cai Jianhui said employers should manage workplaces in accordance with labor laws and communicate clearly to avoid legal consequences.

來源：央視新聞微信公眾號(hào)

跟著China Daily

精讀英語新聞

“無痛”學(xué)英語，每天20分鐘就夠！