Share to: Welcome to post comments I want to comment. The Second People's Court of Zhongshan City believed that the important controversial focus in this case lies in whether the reason for the factory dismissing Fang (severely violating the rules and regulations) is valid, Beijing Changdi Electric Oven Repair.
According to the court, Fang, who is 50 years old, started working as a welder in a company in Xiaolan on May 11, 2004, and signed a labor contract. On May 16, 2011, when Fang had an argument with his supervisor, he took out his mobile phone to prepare for recording, which was stopped by the supervisor, causing the phone to fall to the ground. Fang picked up a workpiece and chased the supervisor, resulting in the supervisor's left thumb being injured.
The judge believed that although Fang claimed he chased and hit the supervisor in self-defense, since the supervisor only prevented Fang from recording, i.e., his initial action was aimed at the phone used for recording rather than a personal attack on Fang, Fang's personal safety was not threatened, so there was no need for self-defense. Even if the supervisor's action of knocking down Fang's phone was wrong, Fang, as the victim, could choose to report the situation to the factory to hold him accountable or seek compensation through other legal means. Therefore, Fang's claim of self-defense cannot be established, and his behavior showed a certain degree of subjective malice.
Focus
Is it self-defense?
The court rejected all of Fang's litigation requests.
Afterwards, the two went to the police station to handle the matter. After finishing the statement, the police station thought the circumstances were minor and let the two handle it themselves. On May 24, the factory issued a "Punishment Notice," dismissing Fang无偿ly for severely violating the rules and regulations. "This is self-defense! How can it be considered as violating the factory rules?" Fang expressed strong dissatisfaction, saying he recorded because the factory randomly deducted 76 yuan for water and electricity fees, and his April salary was reduced by 76 yuan. After the labor arbitration was rejected, Fang sued the factory at the Second People's Court of Zhongshan, demanding the factory pay 49,000 yuan in compensation for illegally terminating the labor contract and compensate him for his mobile phone loss of 2,500 yuan.
South China Morning Post news intern Xiao Cheng, correspondent Li Shiwen, Pan Xiaohua reported that Fang, a worker in Xiaolan, believed that the factory wrongly deducted 76 yuan for water and electricity fees from his salary. When arguing with the supervisor, he used his mobile phone to record, and the supervisor knocked his phone to the ground. Subsequently, Fang injured the supervisor and was dismissed by the factory. Fang believed it was self-defense and sued the factory, claiming nearly 50,000 yuan in compensation. Yesterday, the reporter learned from the Second People's Court of Zhongshan that the court rejected all his claims.
Weibo recommendation | Today's Weibo hot topics
Related theme articles:
Man doubts daughter is not his own and sues the court to determine no relation
Students buy toy lottery tickets, parents worry about addiction affecting psychology
Hospital issues wrong pathology report scaring patients (picture)