Telling the truth in the mens work group was sued by the company for claim of 460,000 yuan

category:Hot
 Telling the truth in the mens work group was sued by the company for claim of 460,000 yuan


Qunli said that truth was claimed for 460,000 yuan

Jiang Han is a coach of a driving school in Dalian. He has worked since 2014. In order to facilitate contacts with students, Jiang Han established the Weixin Group of Laojiang Car Friends Association with 38 members.

In March this year, a trainee said that he had no time to continue driving and did not want to learn. He asked if he could refund his fee. Previously, due to the reform of the driving school system, the trainees were unable to train for about a week. Considering that the trainee only practiced the car twice, Jiang Han thought that the fee should be refunded, so he asked the leader of the driving school. With the approval of the leader, Jiang Han sent a message to the Wechat Group of the Association: There is an agreement in the driving school that cant be signed. Thepersonal reasonwritten above, but this is the reason for the reorganization of the driving school, and the full refund is required.

Jiang Han explained to reporters that signing the agreement meant that the students admitted that they had 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 triggered more than 300 students to ask for refunds. The driving school sued Jiang Han for rescinding the Business Cooperation Contract and compensating him for economic loss of 260,000 yuan and reputation loss of 200,000 yuan.

Jiang Han was very surprised when he received a summons from the court. He believes that if other students ask for a refund, the school should sign a contract with both parties and deal with it in accordance with the principle of honesty, trustworthiness and fairness, which has nothing to do with itself. On the other hand, the driver school advocates that since Jiang Han is an employee of the company, he should abide by the rules and regulations of the driving school. His comments published by Wechat Group are harmful to the business image of the enterprise and have caused adverse consequences. He should be dismissed and compensated for the loss of the driving school.

After trial, the court held that Jiang Han did not make inflammatory remarks and that there was no evidence to support the loss of driving school. As for the refund of more than 300 students, it is for their own reasons that they dropped out of school and reached an agreement with the driving school on the tuition fee. It can not prove that the refund has a causal relationship with Jiang Hans remarks and does not support the claim for compensation.

Employees who publish false statements and cause adverse consequences shall bear legal responsibility, and those with minor circumstances shall not be severely punished or even dismissed. Zheng Hong, a judge in Shenyang who tried such cases, said.

Zheng Hong told reporters that in his work, he encountered many cases of dismissal of Wechat Group of Troubles.

For example, after drinking, employees complain a few words in the working group, which are seen by colleagues and customers. The company considers that it has damaged the companys image and reputation and dismissed them for serious violations. Employees B express their dissatisfaction with the personnel supervisors in the companys colleaguesWechat group. The company takes reducing the social evaluation of personnel supervisors as the reason. Claim for mental loss fees and dismiss them; C employee released indecent videos in the workforce and was terminated by the company in violation of the Public Security Management Penalty Law.

Zheng Hong said that in the process of hearing the work disputes in Weixin Group, can the employeesstatements alone cause serious consequences? Should they be punished or dismissed directly after the consequences? Can employees private comments be used as evidence of violation of company rules and regulations? All these need to be further judged.

Who has the final say in private words or public statements?

The reporter interviewed 28 employees randomly, each of whom had more than one working group. They all think that Wechat Group is a private social tool, only a certain range of people know, not in public, and private talk should not be regarded as public opinion by enterprises.

However, most enterprises do not think so.

Do you speak in front of the whole unit and let the company take care of your misconduct? Meng Fengqin, a staff member of Personnel Department of a construction company in Liaoning Province, questioned.

Some employees were dismissed by the company because of improper complaints, and the court held that the company did not constitute a lifting of the law.

Ladies and gentlemen, Im leaving the company. The boss launders money and cheats money. The salary can only be paid in April. Everyone should prepare early. Chong Wei, marketing director of an information technology limited company, sent this message in the companys Wechat group. When the boss learned about it, he dismissed him for spreading rumors that he had seriously violated company rules and regulations. After one ruling and two adjudications, the final adjudicating unit of the court does not constitute the termination of the violation of the law and does not have to pay compensation.

The Internet is free and orderly.

Avoid inappropriateness and set rules first. Liaoning Qingsong Law Firm lawyer Wang Jinhai said that no matter what platform, the release of false statements should be responsible. The Internet is free and orderly. Members of internet groups should bear corresponding legal liability if they use internet groups to disseminate information prohibited by laws, regulations and relevant state regulations, and infringe upon the legitimate rights and interests of others by using information networks.

The most infringed by bad speech is the right of reputation. There are no relevant regulations on how to punish infringement and how to punish it. The 28 employees interviewed by the journalists are in the enterprises where they work. There are no such norms as Weixin Group Management Measures or Weixin Group Violation Instructions. Zheng Hong believes that Weixin Group belongs to the autonomy of natural persons, and laws and regulations will not and can not make more detailed regulations. Some enterprises can easily set up working groups, but fail to improve the rules and regulations in the later period, resulting in frequent disputes. Wang Lei, director of the Institute of Sociology, Liaoning Academy of Social Sciences, believes that the Wechat Group is open to all members of the group and can be screened and disseminated publicly, so all speeches should be regarded as public statements. In line with the principle of who builds and who is responsible, the enterprise has the right of management. It can require members to be honest and trustworthy, abide by discipline and law, and can be held accountable for members who publish false statements. Source: Responsible Editor of CCTV Network: Wang Ning_NB12468

The most infringed by bad speech is the right of reputation. There are no relevant regulations on how to punish infringement and how to punish it. The 28 employees interviewed by the journalists are in the enterprises where they work. There are no such norms as Weixin Group Management Measures or Weixin Group Violation Instructions.

Zheng Hong believes that Weixin Group belongs to the autonomy of natural persons, and laws and regulations will not and can not make more detailed regulations. Some enterprises can easily set up working groups, but fail to improve the rules and regulations in the later period, resulting in frequent disputes.

Wang Lei, director of the Institute of Sociology, Liaoning Academy of Social Sciences, believes that the Wechat Group is open to all members of the group and can be screened and disseminated publicly, so all speeches should be regarded as public statements. In line with the principle of who builds and who is responsible, the enterprise has the right of management. It can require members to be honest and trustworthy, abide by discipline and law, and can be held accountable for members who publish false statements.