（来源：荔枝新闻） #员工单日如厕6小时21分钟被解雇#【#员工腹痛上厕所3分钟遭解雇获赔6万#】近日，江苏省南通市通 州区人民法院和北京市顺义区人民法院分别审理了一起员工因如厕离岗被解雇的劳动争议案件。南通刘 某一个月内11次长时间滞留卫生间，单日最长达6小时21分钟，被法院认定超出合理生理需求，属变相 旷工，公司解雇合法；而北京李某值班时突发腹痛，如厕3分钟且提前联系同事顶岗，被判定为正常生 理现象，公司违法解雇需赔偿6万余元。法律人士明确：区分"合理需求"与"摸鱼违纪"，核心看主观意 图（是否逃避工作）行为合理性（时长频率是否合规）和岗位属性。企业在行使用工自主权时，须严守 合理合法边界。@陕视新闻 转自：荔枝新闻 ...

（来源：工人日报） 阅读提示 近期有法院审理并宣判因如厕离岗被解雇的劳动争议案件。律师表示，界定"合理生理需求"与"违纪脱 岗"需综合多方面因素考量，企业行使用工自主权须严守合理合法边界，劳动者也应履行勤勉工作的义 务。 江苏省南通市通州区人民法院审结的一起案件中，刘某在南通某电路公司担任专员，2023年2月期间， 刘某频繁、长时间地停留在公司卫生间，日累计时长短则一个多小时，长则超过6小时。公司认为该行 为严重违反劳动纪律和规章制度，在与刘某面谈后发出《解除劳动合同通知书》。刘某离职后申请劳动 仲裁，要求公司支付赔偿金20余万元，未获支持后又诉至法院。 法院根据监控视频查明，刘某在2023年2月期间长时间停留卫生间达11次，每次31分钟至3小时5分钟不 等，单日最长停留6小时21分钟。 法院审理认为，正常如厕应即去即回，短暂停留不构成擅离岗位，但刘某的行为明显超出合理生理需求 范围，也超出其岗位职责所需，且刘某未提交证据证明其间在履行工作职责，故构成擅离岗位。依据公 司规章制度，其累计旷工已达6天，公司解除劳动关系合法。 同样是因如厕离岗被解雇，另一起案件的判决结果却不同。 李某是北京一家食品公司的消防中控 ...

Core Viewpoint - The article highlights the importance of adhering to legal regulations when companies make changes to employee positions or statuses, emphasizing that such actions must be reasonable and lawful to protect workers' rights [1][2]. Group 1: Labor Disputes and Resolutions - In Yingkou City, two labor disputes arose from job reassignment and standby status, showcasing the need for lawful practices in employment changes [1]. - A case involving an employee, Wang Qiang, illustrates that unilateral job reassignment without proper legal basis can lead to disputes, which were resolved through union mediation, restoring his original position and salary [1]. - Another case with Li Li involved a restaurant management company attempting to terminate a contract due to a claimed job change, which was also resolved through mediation, resulting in an economic compensation agreement [1]. Group 2: Legal Framework and Responsibilities - The Labor Contract Law in China stipulates that changes to employment contracts, including job positions and locations, must be based on mutual agreement and follow principles of equality and voluntary negotiation [1]. - Companies are urged to enhance their legal awareness and comply with regulations when exercising employment autonomy to avoid infringing on workers' rights [2]. - The role of unions and mediation organizations is emphasized as crucial in providing legal advice and dispute resolution services, while labor inspection departments are called to strengthen oversight of employment practices [2].

Core Viewpoint - The article emphasizes that performance evaluations should not be misused as a justification for arbitrary dismissals, and companies must adhere to legal standards when exercising employment autonomy [1][4]. Group 1: Legal Framework and Court Rulings - A recent case in Beijing highlighted that a company's practice of "bottom elimination" for employee dismissal was deemed illegal, as it did not comply with legal requirements [1]. - According to China's Labor Contract Law, dismissals must be based on "objective incompetence," and companies must follow procedures such as training or reassignment before termination [1][2]. - The Supreme Court's meeting minutes clarify that dismissing employees solely based on performance rankings is not legally valid [1]. Group 2: Performance Evaluation Practices - Companies often justify dismissals by claiming employees are "incompetent," but being ranked last does not equate to being incompetent, as performance differences may be minimal [2]. - Many companies have flawed evaluation systems that lack transparency and objectivity, leading to unfair dismissals based solely on performance rankings [2][3]. - The practice of "bottom elimination" is often a simplistic approach to management issues, shifting responsibility away from proper evaluation and support systems [3]. Group 3: Employee Rights and Corporate Responsibility - Companies must not abuse their autonomy in employment practices by implementing overly harsh evaluation standards that lead to wrongful terminations [4]. - The article stresses the importance of establishing a fair and scientific evaluation system that protects employees' rights to information and appeals [4]. - The court's ruling serves as a warning to companies that performance evaluations should not be a cover for arbitrary dismissals, and efficiency and employee rights can coexist [4].