Does the word "get out" mean for the employee to leave the office, or to leave the company?
Recently, a labor dispute case from a years ago sparked heated discussions online—Xiao Peng, an employee of a
chemical company in Shanghai, had an argument with the company's head. After being shouted at to "get," he left the
company, and the company subsequently dismissed him on the grounds of absenteeism.
Can an emotional verbal instruction be legally recognized as a valid notice of termination of an contract?
In 2020, Xiao Peng, an employee at a chemical company in Shanghai, had a dispute with his supervisor over work
assignments. Subsequently he reported the situation to the company head, but another conflict erupted during their
conversation. In a fit of anger, the head told Xiao Peng to "get out," and Xiao Peng left the company.
A few days later, Xiao Peng's wife approached the company head to ask if her husband could return to work. The head
stated that the words spoken the time were said in anger, but as for whether he could return to his post, it would need
"further consideration."
However, not long after, the company terminated the contract on the grounds that Xiao Peng had been away from his
post for several days and had been absent from work consecutively.
Xiao Peng applied for labor arbitration, requesting the company to pay 159,800 yuan in compensation for the illegal
termination of the labor contract, but the arbitration institution did not support the claim. Dissatisfied, Xiao Peng filed a
lawsuit in court.
The court of first instance held that there was no evidence to prove that the word "get out" spoken by the company's
person in charge meant "get out of the company", Xiao Peng's failure to report to work constituted absenteeism, and
the claim for compensation lacked sufficient basis. Dissatisfied with the first-instance judgment, Xiao Peng appealed to
the Shanghai First Intermediate People's Court.
During the second-instance trial, both parties debated the meaning of the word "get out" spoken by the company
executive. The judge focused on questioning whether the company had communicated with Xiao Peng regarding his
work attendance from the time the dispute occurred until the company terminated his employment contract.
The company representative admitted that during this period, the company did not explain the meaning of "get out,"
nor did it notify the employee to return to work. 02:20
The judge found that there was indeed a dispute and disagreement over the meaning of the word "get out" spoken by
the company executive at the time. The executive claimed that "get out" meant "get out of the office," while Xiao Peng
understood it as "get out of the company." When Xiao Peng's wife went to the company to negotiate with the boss, she
expressed her husband's willingness to continue working, but the company did not ask him to return to his post. After
the executive told the employee to "get out," it was unclear whether he still wanted the employee to continue working.
Therefore, Xiao Peng's act of waiting at home for further instructions from the company did not constitute absenteeism.
The second-instance court held that Xiao Peng's claim for the company to pay 159,800 yuan in compensation for the
illegal termination of the employment contract should be supported in accordance with the law.
Five years after the case was concluded, it has recently garnered widespread attention online, reflecting the public's
high concern over workplace fairness and the protection of workers rights.
In response, presiding judge Cai Jianhui reminded that enterprises must act in accordance with laws and regulations in
their daily management. "Rules and regulations promulgated by enterprises that involve vital interests of workers must
undergo democratic procedures. For managers, they must standardize their words and actions and manage according
to the law in their daily operations; otherwise, they may face consequences."
This article is reprinted from the WeChat public account "Shandong High Court", and we express our gratitude here!