However, incidents of labor disputes have occurred frequently due to public and private confusion in WeChat. An interview with the reporter of the Workers Daily found that employees did not regard WeChat as a public occasion, issued negative comments, and the company did not have a WeChat group management method, and the punishment was excessive after repeated adverse consequences.
The group said "the truth" was claimed 460,000 yuan
Jiang Han is a coach of a driving school in Dalian and has worked in 2014. In order to facilitate contact with the students, Jiang Han established the "Ginger Che Youhui" WeChat group with 38 members.
In March of this year, a student said that he did not have time to continue practicing the car. He did not want to learn and asked if he could refund the fee. Previously, due to the reform of the driving school system, the trainees could not train for about a week. Considering that the trainee only trained twice, Jiang Han thought that he should refund the fee, he asked the driving school leader, and after receiving the leadership's consent, Jiang Han sent a message in the WeChat group of the Che Youhui: "The driving school has an agreement that cannot be signed. The 'personal reason' written above, but this is the reason for the reorganization of the driving school, a full refund."
Jiang Han explained to reporters that signing this agreement means that the trainees admitted that they applied for a refund for personal reasons, so they could not get all the refunds, so they wanted to remind the students. Unexpectedly, this reminder caused more than 300 students to request a refund. The driving school told Jiang Han that the "business cooperation contract" was lifted, and the economic loss was 260,000 yuan and the honorary loss was 200,000 yuan.
Jiang Han was very surprised when he received a court summons. He believes that other students require a refund, and the school should sign the contract in accordance with the principle of honesty, trustworthiness and fairness, and has nothing to do with itself. The driving school advocated that since Jiang Han is a company employee, he should abide by the rules and regulations of the driving school. His comments on the WeChat group are detrimental to the business image of the company and have caused adverse consequences. He should be dismissed and compensate for the loss of driving school.
After the trial, the court held that Jiang Han did not make inflammatory remarks, resulting in no evidence to support the loss of driving school. Regarding the refund of more than 300 students, they dropped out of school for their own reasons, and reached an agreement with the driving school on the tuition fee. It could not prove that the refund had a causal relationship with Jiang Han’s speech and did not support the claim for compensation.
"Employees who make false statements and cause bad consequences should bear legal responsibility, and those with lesser circumstances should not be severely punished or even dismissed." Zheng Hong, a judge in Shenyang who tried such a case, said.
Zheng Hong told reporters that he had encountered many cases of dismissal of the "WeChat group" in his work.
For example, a staff member complained of a few complaints in the work group after being drunk, and was seen by colleagues and customers. The company believed that it damaged the company's image and reputation, and it was a serious violation to dismiss it. B employees issued a speech expression in the company's colleague WeChat group. The personnel supervisor was dissatisfied. The company claimed the mental damages and dismissed it on the grounds of “reducing the social evaluation of personnel directors”; C employees issued indecent videos in the work group and were terminated by the company in violation of the “Public Security Administration Punishment Law”.
Zheng Hong said that in the course of the trial of the work disputes in the WeChat group, can it cause serious consequences only by the employees' speeches? After the consequences, should they be punished or directly dismissed? Can employees' private speech be evidence of violations of company rules and regulations? These need further judgment.
"Personal words" or "public statements" who has the final say
The reporter randomly interviewed 28 employees, each with more than one work group. They all believe that WeChat group is a "private" social tool. Only a certain range of people know, not public, "private words" should not be regarded as "public statements" by enterprises.
However, most companies do not look at it this way.
"You speak in front of the whole unit, do you not let the company manage if you act improperly?" Meng Fengqin, a staff member of the personnel department of a construction company in Liaoning, questioned.
According to Article 9 of the “Regulations on the Management of Internet Group Information Services” implemented in 2017, Internet group creators and managers shall perform group management responsibilities and regulate group network behaviors and information in accordance with laws, regulations, user agreements and platform conventions. Publish and build a civilized and orderly network group space. Meng Fengqin believes that the work group is part of the enterprise work, and the group must adhere to the "group rules". Otherwise, the group owner can punish, and the punishment is naturally the business of the group owner.
Some employees were dismissed because of improper “grievances” and the court held that the company did not constitute illegal removal.
"Everyone, I have to leave the company. The boss is laundering money and cheating money. The salary can only be sent to April. Let's prepare for it." Chong Wei, marketing director of an information technology company, issued this article in the company WeChat group. information. After the boss learned it, he dismissed him on the grounds that his rumors spread seriously violated the company's rules and regulations. After a ruling and two trials, the final judgment of the court does not constitute an illegal release, and no compensation is required.
During the trial of the case, the unit submitted a WeChat screen shot as evidence, and Chong Wei recognized its authenticity. The evidence showed that he did publish bad comments in the group. According to the terms of the company's rules and regulations that “seriously damage the state or the company's reputation and interests within the company, it is a gross negligence”, the court found that his practice is a behavior that damages the company's reputation.
The Internet is free and orderly
"Avoid improper, first set the rules." Wang Jinhai, a lawyer at Liaoning Qingsong Law Firm, said that no matter what platform, it is necessary to issue false statements. The Internet is free and orderly. If members of the Internet group use Internet groups to disseminate information and regulations prohibited by laws and regulations and relevant state regulations, and use information networks to infringe on the legitimate rights and interests of others, they shall bear corresponding legal responsibilities.
"Who is responsible for building the group?" "Who manages who is responsible." Meng Yuping, deputy director of Liaoning Bailian Law Firm, believes that for the group owners, they must be responsible for the group they have built and perform their management duties. All members must abide by laws and regulations when communicating and communicating in the group. Express and jointly maintain the cyberspace order of civilization.
The most infringed by bad speech is the right of reputation. There is no relevant regulation on how to punish and punish the infringement. The 28 employees who were interviewed by the reporter did not have such specifications as the WeChat Group Management Measures and the WeChat Group Violation Instructions.
Zheng Hong believes that WeChat group belongs to the category of natural person's willing autonomy, and laws and regulations will not and cannot make more fine regulations. Some enterprises can easily build a work group, but they do not do a good job in improving the rules and regulations in the later period, resulting in frequent disputes.
For the labor dispute caused by WeChat group, Wang Lei, director of the Institute of Sociology of Liaoning Academy of Social Sciences, believes that the WeChat work group has the characteristics of being open to all members of the group and can be screened for public communication. Therefore, all speeches should be regarded as "public statements". . In the principle of who is responsible and who is responsible, enterprises have the right to manage, and they can ask members to be honest and trustworthy, obey the law, and be accountable to members who publish false statements. (Partially interviewed by a pseudonym)