Sihai network

Tell the truth and claim 460000. Why don't you tell the truth

I thought I was telling the truth in the wechat working group, but the company sued the company for compensation for economic and reputation losses totaling 460000 yuan. On August 16, Jiang Han got the civil judgment of the people's Court of Dalian Economic and Technological Development Zone. He was relieved when he knew he had won the lawsuit.

Wechat is a social platform for people's daily communication. Many employers apply wechat to work communication by establishing work groups. However, there are frequent labor disputes due to public-private confusion in wechat. The reporter found that employees do not regard wechat as a public occasion, make negative comments, the enterprise does not have wechat group management measures, and the punishment is too heavy after adverse consequences, resulting in continuous disputes.

The group claimed 460000 yuan for telling the truth

Jiang Han is a coach of a driving school in Dalian. He has worked since 2014. In order to facilitate contact with students, Jiang Han established the wechat group of 'Lao Jiang car club', with 38 members.

In March this year, a student said he didn't have time to continue practicing cars and didn't want to learn. He asked if he could refund the fee. Previously, due to the reform of driving school system, students couldn't practice cars for about a week. Considering that the student had only practiced the car twice, Jiang Han thought that the fee should be refunded, so he asked the leadership of the driving school. With the consent of the leadership, Jiang Han sent a message to the wechat group of the car club: 'there is an agreement in the driving school that can't be signed. It says & lsquo; Personal reasons & rsquo;, But this is the reason for the restructuring of the driving school. We need a full refund. "

Jiang Han explained to reporters that signing this Agreement means that the students admit that they apply for a refund for personal reasons, so they can't get a full refund, so they want to remind the students. Unexpectedly, this reminder triggered more than 300 students to ask for a refund. The driving school sued Jiang Han for the termination of the business cooperation contract and compensated 260000 yuan for economic losses and 200000 yuan for reputation losses.

When he received the court summons, Jiang Han was very surprised. He believes that if other students ask for refund, the school should deal with it in accordance with the contract signed by both parties and in the principle of honesty, trustworthiness and fairness, which has nothing to do with itself. The driving school side claimed that since Jiang Han is an employee of the company, he should abide by the rules and regulations of the driving school. His remarks published on wechat group are detrimental to the business image of the enterprise and have caused adverse consequences. He should be dismissed and compensate for the losses of the driving school.

After hearing, the court held that Jiang Han had no inflammatory remarks, resulting in the loss of the driving school, which was not supported by evidence. As for 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 can not prove that the refund has a causal relationship with Jiang Hanyan's theory, and they do not support the claim for compensation.

"If an employee makes untrue remarks and causes bad consequences, he shall bear legal responsibility, and if the circumstances are minor, he shall not be severely punished or even dismissed." Zheng Hong, a judge in Shenyang who tried such cases, said.

Zheng Hong told reporters that he had encountered many dismissal cases of "bringing disaster to wechat group" in his work.

For example, employee a made a few complaints in the work group after drinking, and was seen by colleagues and customers. The company thought it had damaged the company's image and reputation, which was a serious violation and dismissed him; Employee B made comments in the wechat group of colleagues of the company to express his dissatisfaction with the HR supervisor. The company claimed mental loss and dismissed him on the grounds of 'reducing the social evaluation of the HR supervisor'; Employee C released indecent videos in the work group and was dismissed by the company for violating the law on public security management punishment.

Zheng Hong said that during the trial of work dispute cases in wechat group, can serious consequences be caused only by the speeches of employees? Should they be punished or dismissed directly after causing consequences? Can employees' private remarks be used as evidence of violation of the company's rules and regulations? These need further judgment.

Who has the final say?

The reporter randomly interviewed 28 enterprise employees, each of whom has more than one work group. They all believe that wechat group is a 'private' social tool, which is known only to a certain range of people, not in public. Private words should not be regarded as' public words' by enterprises.

However, most enterprises do not think so.

'you speak indiscriminately in front of the whole unit. Don't you let the company manage your misconduct?' 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 administration of Internet group information services implemented in 2017, Internet Group founders and managers shall perform the responsibility of group management, standardize group network behavior and information release in accordance with laws and regulations, user agreements and platform conventions, and build a civilized and orderly network group space. Meng Fengqin believes that the work group is part of the work of enterprises, and the group must abide by the "group rules", otherwise the group owners can be punished, and punishment is natural as the group owners' business has the final say.

Some employees were dismissed by the company due to improper 'complaining', and the court held that the company did not constitute illegal termination.

'everybody, I'm leaving the company. The boss launders money and swindles money. The salary can only be paid until April. Let's get ready early.' Chong Wei, marketing director of an information technology Co., Ltd., sent this message in the company's wechat group. When the boss learned about it, he dismissed him for spreading rumors and seriously violating the company's rules and regulations. After first instance and second instance, the court made a final judgment that the unit did not constitute illegal cancellation and did not need to pay compensation.

During the trial of the case, the unit submitted a wechat screenshot as evidence, and Chong Wei recognized its authenticity, which showed that he did make bad comments in the group. According to the provisions of the company's rules and regulations that "it is gross negligence to commit acts that seriously damage the reputation and interests of the state or the company inside and outside the company", the court found that his actions were acts that damage the reputation of the company.

The Internet is free and orderly

'To avoid wrongdoing, set rules first. ' Wang Jinhai, a lawyer at Liaoning Qingsong law firm, said that no matter what platform, we should be responsible for publishing false statements. The Internet is free and orderly. If Internet group members use internet groups to disseminate information content prohibited by laws and regulations and relevant national regulations, and use information networks to infringe upon the legitimate rights and interests of others, they shall bear corresponding legal responsibilities.

'who builds the group is responsible' 'who manages is responsible'. Meng Yuping, deputy director of Liaoning Bailian law firm, believes that for group leaders, they should be responsible for their own group and perform their management responsibilities. When communicating and communicating in the group, all members should abide by laws and regulations, speak in a civilized manner and express rationally, so as to jointly maintain the civilized cyberspace order.

The right to reputation is the most infringed by bad speech. However, the enterprise has no relevant regulations on how to punish the infringement and to what extent. The enterprises of the 28 employees interviewed by the reporter have no norms such as' wechat group management measures' and 'wechat group violation instructions'.

Zheng Hong believes that wechat group belongs to the consensual autonomy of natural persons, and laws and regulations will not and cannot make more and more detailed regulations. Some enterprises easily set up work groups, but did not improve the later rules and regulations, resulting in frequent disputes.

For the labor disputes caused by the wechat group, Wang Lei, director of the Institute of Sociology of Liaoning Academy of Social Sciences, believes that the wechat working group is open to all group members and can be screenshot and publicly disseminated. Therefore, all speeches should be regarded as' public speeches'. In line with the principle of "who builds who is responsible", the enterprise has the right to manage, and can require members to be honest and trustworthy, abide by discipline and law, and can be held accountable for members who make false statements.