An employee was late in starting up his computer by 8 minutes, talked with a colleague for 4 minutes, and left his workstation 4 minutes early. These actions were captured by company surveillance cameras and later used as evidence in court. Recently, the Nanjing Intermediate People's Court issued a second-instance verdict, ruling that the company's "surprise" dismissal constituted illegal termination, and that silent surveillance footage cannot reflect subjective intent.
According to reports, in January 2025, Lin, a technical engineer who had worked for the company for more than four years, returned from an out-of-town project to the Nanjing branch office. He worked regular hours, proactively conducted research, and reported progress. However, on the afternoon of February 13, 2025, the company terminated Lin's contract on the grounds of "serious disciplinary violations" and required him to complete all departure formalities within one hour. Lin subsequently sued the company for illegal termination of labor relations. In court, the company presented more than ten segments of silent surveillance video as evidence of Lin's "slacking off," including: January 17: left seat for 9 minutes, looked at phone, talked with colleague for 4 minutes; January 23: left seat for 15 minutes, chatted with colleagues for 15 minutes in the morning and afternoon, packed up 3 minutes early; January 24: started computer 8 minutes late, checked phone; January 26: left seat for 14 minutes, looked at phone, left workstation 4 minutes early; February 5: computer screen black and idle for 28 minutes, left workstation 4 minutes early.
Lin refuted each point in court: Regarding leaving a few minutes early, the office was on the 4th floor, and the time clock was on the 1st floor; leaving 4 minutes early to wait for the elevator and punching out on time — was that considered leaving early? Regarding leaving his seat and talking, Lin said that leaving his workstation was for basic physiological needs such as using the restroom or drinking water; talking with colleagues was normal work communication; looking at his phone was to check competitor information and work WeChat — how could surveillance claim he was "slacking off"? Regarding the sudden dismissal, Lin stated that he had no record of disciplinary violations in over four years, and the company never issued any warnings or conducted any investigations before directly "convicting" him based on surveillance clips — this was an illegal termination!
Recently, the Nanjing Intermediate People's Court issued a second-instance verdict on the labor dispute, ruling that the behaviors shown in the surveillance video were brief and infrequent, not reaching the level of "serious disciplinary violations." The company's "surprise" dismissal of the employee based solely on surveillance footage was illegal, and the company was ordered to pay compensation of 108,000 yuan. The presiding judge stated that technology can record external behavior but cannot assess subjective intent. The company's attempt to pin employees to their workstations through continuous surveillance is neither realistic nor supported by law.
Yangtze Evening News/Ziniu News reporter Ren Guoyong Video Qing Miaomiao Editing Proofreader Tao Shangong
