有一天，他收到公司调整岗位的函，称公司已将其调至无锡市的另一家门店担任店长，调动后基本薪资 不变。 但小张不乐意，认为两家门店的销售量差异很大，公司的调岗行为属于变相降薪，甚至怀疑公司是在逼 迫他离职。向公司表示拒绝调岗后，小张继续在原岗位上班打卡。 一个多月后，小张接到了公司出具的解除劳动合同通知，载明他拒不服从公司安排、不到岗报到，并连 续旷工超过三天，已经严重违反了公司的规章制度，公司告知工会后，决定与小张解除劳动关系。小张 认为，用人单位违法解除劳动关系，遂向仲裁委申请仲裁，后不服仲裁结果诉至法院，要求支付违法解 除的赔偿金。 无锡市锡山法院审理认为，公司的调岗具有合理性，小张要求公司支付扣减的工资无事实和法律依据， 判决驳回小张的全部诉讼请求。 案件承办法官表示，签订劳动合同是劳动用工中非常重要的环节。用人单位与劳动者在签订劳动合同 时，应当对工作性质、工作内容、工作地点，以及工资与绩效等内容做详细约定。在录用劳动者时应当 将劳动合同内容向对方详细阐明，以免出现双方理解存在分歧的情况。 该案中，双方签订的劳动合同中约定的工作地点为无锡市，即双方已经就未来预期可能发生的工作地点 变化达成了一致意见，公 ...

Core Viewpoint - The incident involving an employee using a rubber fingerprint to clock in for a colleague has led to both individuals being dismissed from their jobs, highlighting the serious consequences of violating company attendance policies [1][12]. Group 1: Incident Overview - Zhang, an employee at a clothing company, was found to have used a rubber fingerprint to have a colleague clock in for him on multiple occasions [1][8]. - The company discovered this practice after receiving a tip-off and subsequently reviewed surveillance footage, confirming the misconduct [8][12]. - Zhang's actions were deemed a violation of the company's attendance policy as outlined in the employee handbook, which was agreed upon by employees during a representative meeting [4][12]. Group 2: Company Policies - The employee handbook, effective from January 1, 2018, includes strict rules regarding attendance, stating that employees must clock in at designated locations and that unauthorized absences or clocking in for others will be treated as absenteeism [4][12]. - The handbook also specifies that violations of attendance policies can lead to immediate termination of employment [4][12]. Group 3: Legal Proceedings - Following the dismissal, Zhang contested the company's decision, claiming that the handbook was not properly established and that he had received verbal permission for his absences [10][12]. - The court ruled in favor of the company, stating that Zhang's actions constituted a serious breach of the established policies, which were legally binding [12][16]. - The court also noted that the company had rectified any procedural issues regarding the notification of the labor union, thus validating the termination process [16][17].

Core Viewpoint - Liu Liu Guo Yuan Group Co., Ltd. is facing multiple legal disputes, market challenges, and capital scrutiny, with a total of 17 legal cases reported in 2025, including issues related to unfair competition, trademark infringement, labor disputes, and copyright disputes [1][2]. Legal Issues - Liu Liu Guo Yuan has been involved in 17 legal disputes in 2025, with cases scheduled until September, covering various legal grounds across five provinces [1]. - The company is a defendant in several cases, including trademark infringement and unfair competition, with specific cases filed against it in Shanghai and Anhui [2]. Financial Performance - The company has seen its revenue grow from 1.174 billion to 1.616 billion from 2022 to 2024, but its gross margin has decreased from 38.6% to 36% during the same period, indicating a trend of increasing revenue without corresponding profit growth [9]. - The raw material cost ratio has increased from 41.7% to 47.7% from 2022 to 2024, highlighting rising cost pressures [8]. Product Quality Concerns - Liu Liu Guo Yuan has received numerous complaints regarding product quality, with 445 complaints specifically related to its "Liu Liu Mei" brand, focusing on issues like food safety and product spoilage [4][5]. - The company has been criticized for a significant drop in R&D investment by 43.8% to 1.8948 million in 2024, while spending on celebrity endorsements reached 106 million, accounting for 71% of net profit [8]. Market Position and Strategy - The company has heavily relied on marketing and celebrity endorsements rather than product innovation, leading to a cycle of increasing marketing costs and declining product quality [10]. - Liu Liu Guo Yuan's IPO prospects are uncertain due to concentrated ownership and past controversies, including the exit of major investors like Sequoia China [9]. Industry Implications - The case of Liu Liu Guo Yuan serves as a warning to the industry about the risks of over-reliance on marketing at the expense of product quality and consumer trust [10]. - The company must focus on improving raw material quality, increasing R&D investment, and enhancing customer service to regain market trust and ensure sustainable growth [10].

Core Viewpoint - The company, Duoyi Network, announced significant operational changes due to court rulings that severely impacted its management rights, leading to the decision to relocate its headquarters and reduce its workforce in Guangzhou by over 1,000 employees [4][5]. Group 1: Company Background - Duoyi Network was established in 2006 and has developed several well-known game products, including "Dream World," "Shenwu" series, "Portal Knights," and "Eternal Magic," holding a notable market share in the turn-based online gaming sector [4]. - The founder, Xu Bo, previously worked at NetEase and played a key role in the popular game "Fantasy Westward Journey" [4]. - As of April 9, 2024, Duoyi Network was valued at 27 billion RMB and ranked 243rd on the "2024 Hurun Global Unicorn List" [5]. Group 2: Recent Developments - The decision to downsize and relocate was triggered by labor disputes with employees, particularly regarding the collection of meal fees, which led to a controversial court ruling [5]. - In early 2025, Duoyi Network attempted to reclaim meal fees from departing employees at a rate of 30 RMB per instance, with some amounts reaching up to 44,000 RMB, which gained significant media attention [5]. - The Huangpu District Court ruled that the company could not enforce meal fee collection as it was deemed a "welfare nature" benefit, which the company strongly contested [5]. Group 3: Implications - The company's large-scale layoffs and headquarters relocation are expected to have profound impacts on its operations and relationships with stakeholders [5]. - The situation highlights the importance of adhering to legal frameworks in resolving disputes between companies and employees, emphasizing the need for lawful dispute resolution to foster industry health [5].