Xie, a security team leader at a property management company in Sichuan, was fired after failing to show up for any of his seven scheduled shifts during the National Day holiday. In its final ruling, the court held that refusing to work during the first three days, which were statutory public holidays, did not constitute absenteeism. However, his absence during the following four days, which were compensatory rest days created by the holiday schedule, did constitute absenteeism. The company’s termination of his employment was therefore lawful, and it was not required to pay compensation of either ¥29,992.
Key Details of the Case
-
Employee and position: Xie, a security team leader at a property management company in Sichuan.
-
Work schedule: A roster issued by the company on September 26, 2022, required Xie to work every day from October 1 to October 7. The roster was signed off by the project manager and the supervisor in charge.
-
Employee’s conduct: Xie failed to report for work on all seven days of the National Day holiday and did not obtain approval for any valid leave of absence.
-
Company’s response: On October 10, the company dismissed Xie for consecutive absenteeism, citing serious violations of its Employee Handbook and Attendance Management Policy, which stipulated that three consecutive days of unauthorized absence could result in termination.
Arbitration vs. Court Ruling
-
Labor arbitration commission: Ruled that the company must pay ¥29,992.82 in compensation for unlawful termination.
-
Court’s ruling:
-
October 1–3 (the first three days): These were statutory public holidays. Workers have a legal right to rest on these days, and refusing to work overtime does not constitute absenteeism.
-
October 4–7 (the following four days): These were rest days created by the compensatory holiday schedule. Employers have the right to arrange work schedules within reasonable limits. Since Xie neither obtained leave approval nor reported for work, his absence constituted absenteeism.
-
Final outcome: Xie’s consecutive absenteeism met the company’s stated grounds for dismissal. The termination was lawful, and the company was not required to pay compensation.
-
The key to this ruling lies in the company’s submitted evidence: a work schedule showing that Xie, from the security department, was assigned to work every day from October 1 to October 7, 2022, while other security staff members, Peng, Wang, and Liu, rotated between day and night shifts. The schedule bore the signatures of the project manager and the supervisor in charge.
Yet China’s labor law stipulates that workers must be given at least one continuous 24-hour rest period within every seven consecutive working days. Despite this apparent violation of labor law, the court made no mention of it in its ruling.
prolet
