Labor relations are an important foundation for social harmony and stability. The lawful termination of labor relations is not only a legal requirement, but also a guarantee for building harmonious labor relations. Recently, the People's Court of Fangshan District, Beijing sorted out typical cases involving the termination of labor relations, interpreted the law through cases, guided employers and workers to correctly fulfill their obligations, protect their rights, and reasonably regulate their own behavior. Case 1: Being urged to leave for surgery and receiving compensation of over 350000 yuan for being absent from work. Cao, an employee of a technology company, urgently needed surgical treatment in October 2022 due to a ruptured anterior cruciate ligament and cartilage injury in his right knee. On the evening of October 11th, Cao received a notice from a tertiary hospital requesting that he complete the hospitalization procedures the next day. Due to the tight hospital bed and surgery schedule, Cao requested a leave of absence from his supervisor that night, stating that he needed to undergo knee surgery for two weeks. However, during Cao's hospitalization for surgery, the company repeatedly requested him to return to work through letters, emails, and other means, but Cao did not reply. The company then terminated the employment relationship on the grounds of Cao's absenteeism. During the trial, Cao claimed that he was unable to use work communication software such as email and Feishu during his hospitalization. However, the company bypassed the most accessible methods such as phone and WeChat and chose Feishu and email to urge Cao to return to work, intentionally creating absenteeism and dismissing him. Therefore, the company should pay compensation for illegal termination of the labor contract. The company claims that Cao did not follow the company's rules and regulations to complete the OA leave procedures, sent a leave application to the supervisor without a response, and left the post without returning despite multiple notifications, which constitutes absenteeism. The court ruled that after receiving the surgery notice, Cao requested leave from his supervisor through a flight letter to indicate that he wanted to undergo knee surgery, and during this period, Cao was indeed hospitalized due to illness. The company, knowing that Cao was unable to return to work due to health reasons, repeatedly requested him to return to work through letters, emails, and other means, and terminated the employment relationship on the grounds of Cao's accumulated absenteeism during this period, which lacked reasonable basis. In the end, the court ruled that the company should pay Cao more than 350000 yuan in compensation for illegally terminating the labor relationship. 【 Judge's Reminder 】 The termination of labor relations by employers is not only a legal act, but also related to the vital interests of workers and social stability. When terminating a labor contract, the company shall abide by the principles of public order and good customs stipulated in the Civil Code, ensuring that the termination behavior not only complies with legal provisions, but also reflects basic respect and humanistic care for the employee. In this case, the employee has the obligation to fulfill the leave procedures in accordance with the rules and regulations of the employer, and the employer also has the right to review the reasons for the employee's leave. However, the boundaries and exercise of employment autonomy should also be good faith, tolerant, and reasonable, and cannot be used indefinitely. Only by achieving reasonableness, reasonableness, and legality can we effectively maintain the harmony and stability of labor relations and promote the common development of enterprises and employees. Case 2: The actual clock in did not comply with the contract agreement. The unit punished Zhang for being deemed inappropriate. Zhang worked as a live streaming operator in a certain company. On June 14, 2023, the company issued a notice of termination of the labor contract to Zhang, stating that Zhang's repeated lateness was considered absenteeism according to the rules and regulations. Zhang appealed to the court and demanded that the company pay compensation for his illegal termination of the labor contract. During the trial, the company stated that its rules and regulations clearly stipulate that working hours are from 8:30 am to 6:00 pm. Being late for more than two hours is considered as absenteeism, and absenteeism for three or more times will result in the termination of the labor contract. Zhang's attendance records show that his early clock in time was later than 8:30 pm, and most of his off hours were from 7:00 pm to midnight. Regarding this, Zhang claimed that he works in a live streaming operation position and has flexible and flexible working hours, which is not strictly required by the company. The court believes that for the violation of discipline by workers, the severity should be distinguished and handled according to the situation through warnings, demerits, demotions, and termination of labor contracts. The handling method should be equivalent to the violation and consequences of the worker. Being late and absent from work are not the same concept, and their severity is also significantly different. The company's rules and regulations consider being late as absenteeism to be unreasonable, which lacks legitimacy in terminating the employment relationship with Zhang based on this. In addition, according to the WeChat chat records submitted by Zhang in this case, it can be seen that Zhang's daily working hours are arranged in conjunction with his work. Since joining, some of his working hours are earlier than 8:30 and most of his closing hours are later than 18:00. In this regard, the company has not provided evidence to prove that it has ever reminded or further requested Zhang's attendance time. The current termination of the labor contract with Zhang based on past attendance time also lacks factual basis. In summary, the company's decision to dismiss Zhang lacks factual basis and rationality, which constitutes an illegal termination of the labor contract. In the end, the court ruled that the company should pay Zhang a compensation of 8000 yuan for illegally terminating the labor contract. [Judge's Reminder] Employers have the right to independently formulate rules and regulations, but this does not mean that they can violate the principle of proportional punishment at will. The punishment for employees should be commensurate with their subjective intention, nature of behavior, and consequences. Article 39 of the Labor Contract Law stipulates that if an employee "seriously" violates the rules and regulations of the employer, the employer may terminate the labor contract. There are two aspects to the understanding of "serious": first, the violation of discipline by workers must reach a serious level; The second is that the punishment of terminating the labor contract can only be applied after exhausting other punishment methods. For minor violations such as tardiness, employers should educate and correct them in a timely manner, warn workers of the potential adverse consequences of continuing to violate the rules, and urge workers to comply with labor discipline, rather than directly taking the most severe disciplinary measures to terminate labor relations. Case 3: Can the cancellation of attendance clock in permission be considered as dismissing employee Zhao from working as an engineer at a real estate agency. On August 29, 2022, the company suspended Zhao's OA office access and attendance clock in access. After completing the resignation procedures on September 1, 2022, Zhao sued the company for illegal termination of the labor contract and demanded that the company pay compensation. During the trial, the company claimed that Zhao resigned on his own and was unable to return to work after August 30, 2022. The resignation procedures were completed on September 1, 2022, and the company did not illegally terminate the labor contract. Zhao claimed that he did not resign on his own, but was dismissed by the company. As the two parties did not reach an agreement on compensation, the company unreasonably revoked his attendance and clock in privileges. He raised objections but did not receive a response. After trial, the court found that after the company suspended Zhao's OA office access and attendance clock in access, Zhao still insisted on normal attendance and took photos and videos of the clock in process every day. In the recorded call between Zhao and Zhou, the head of the company's human resources department, Zhao said, "Just tell me directly what arrangements the company has for me now." Zhou replied, "If there are no arrangements for you now, you just need to resign normally." The court ruled that in labor disputes arising from decisions made by employers such as dismissal, expulsion, termination of labor contracts, reduction of labor remuneration, and calculation of the length of service of employees, the employer bears the burden of proof. In this case, although the company did not explicitly request the termination of the labor contract with Zhao, as an employer, without reaching an agreement with Zhao on the termination of the labor contract, the company stopped his OA system and attendance permissions, which resulted in Zhao being unable to clock in and log in to the OA system. The company did not provide a reasonable explanation for the above situation. In addition, the personnel department staff of the company clearly expressed their request for Zhao to resign in the recording, so it can be concluded that the company has made an intention to terminate the labor contract through actual actions, and its behavior has constituted illegal termination of the labor contract. In the end, the court ruled that the company should pay Zhao more than 230000 yuan in compensation for illegally terminating the labor contract. According to the Labor Contract Law, when an employer directly issues a termination notice to an employee, the employee has the right to demand economic compensation or damages. However, in practice, there is a phenomenon where after disputes arise between employers and employees, they do not explicitly inform them of their intention to terminate their employment. Instead, they take advantage of their advantageous position and use methods such as removing employees from work group chats and disabling clock in permissions to avoid legal liability, in order to force employees to resign. This' disguised dismissal 'deprives workers of their labor rights, meaning that the employer has not clearly expressed the intention to terminate the labor contract to the worker. The employer should still bear the adverse consequences and corresponding responsibilities for this illegal and irregular behavior. Case 4: Whether the change of construction site violates the contract depends on the limit of the unit's employment rights. Wang works for a company in Fangshan District, Beijing. In June 2023, the company relocated Wang's work location from Beijing to Zhuozhou City, Hebei Province due to the overall relocation of the warehouse to Zhuozhou. On July 11, 2023, Wang proposed to terminate the labor contract on the grounds that the company could not provide the labor protection and working conditions stipulated in the labor contract. Later, Wang filed a lawsuit with the court, demanding that the company pay him economic compensation for terminating the labor contract. During the trial, Wang claimed that the company adjusted the workplace without reaching a consensus with the employees and did not provide labor protection to them. The company advocates that it has issued multiple notices to employees explaining the forced relocation of the company, as well as the convenient conditions provided by the company for the relocated employees to work smoothly, such as food, accommodation, and transportation. Since June 12th, the commuting bus has been running normally, and the company should not pay economic compensation for terminating the labor contract. The court believes that if the overall relocation of the employer leads to a change in the worker's workplace and an extension of commuting time, whether it falls under the circumstances of "significant changes in the objective circumstances on which the labor contract was based at the time of its conclusion, resulting in the inability to perform the labor contract" as stipulated in Article 40 (3) of the Labor Contract Law of the People's Republic of China, requires consideration of the distance of relocation, the convenience of commuting, and factors such as whether the employer provides transportation, adjusts attendance times, and increases transportation subsidies to comprehensively evaluate whether the change in workplace has caused serious inconvenience to the worker's work and life and is sufficient to affect the performance of the labor contract. If the employer has taken appropriate measures to reduce the adverse effects of relocation on the employee, and the relocation behavior is not sufficient to cause the labor contract to be unable to be fulfilled, the employee shall not refuse to provide labor on this grounds. In this case, the overall relocation of the company was a business decision made based on the production and operation situation, without changing the position and treatment of the workers, and was not a deliberate act of abusing employment rights to make things difficult for the workers. After the company's relocation, there may indeed be some commuting pressure on the workers. Although the relocation from Fangshan, Beijing to Zhuozhou, Hebei crosses the Beijing urban area, Fangshan, Beijing is adjacent to Zhuozhou, Hebei, and the company has arranged shuttle buses. Overall, the relocation of the company's workplace has limited impact on the workers and does not constitute a fundamental obstacle for both parties to continue fulfilling the labor contract. In the end, the court ruled that the company did not need to pay economic compensation for terminating the labor contract. 【 Judge's Reminder 】 The adjustment of the workplace by the employer does not necessarily result in the inability to perform the labor contract or constitute a reason sufficient to force the employee to terminate the labor contract. When the change of the employer's workplace does not exceed the reasonable scope stipulated in the labor contract, and the employer has taken appropriate measures to fulfill the reasonable obligations stipulated in the labor contract regarding the provision of working conditions.(outlook new era)