Dahe Daily Yu video reporter Chen Tiantian
On April 16, "Xiaomi SU7 owner was fired from Jiyue after buying a car for 5 days" continued to arouse heated discussions among netizens. In this regard, Jiyue responded that the employee was an operator of Jiyue's social media position, but he opened a matrix account on the whole social platform in his own name and hyped up the products of his friend Xiaomi SU7 for up to three months, which violated the clause of "not engaging in business competing with the company" stipulated in the labor contract.
Previously reported: Employees were fired for buying Xiaomi SU7 for violating the non-compete agreement?
Is it a violation of the non-compete agreement for an employee to publish content about a competing car company using his personal social account? Is the unilateral termination of the labor contract reasonable by the enterprise? In response to the hot discussion among netizens, Wang Wenguang, deputy director lawyer of Hebei Shili Law Firm, told the reporter of Dahe Daily Yu Video "See" that the key is to see whether the operation of the employee's personal social account takes up working hours. If it is not occupied, the employee's behavior does not violate the relevant provisions of the non-compete restriction, and the enterprise unilaterally terminates the labor contract, and the employee can claim compensation from the company. On the contrary, if the enterprise has evidence to prove that the employee has taken up working hours to engage in the operation of personal accounts, the enterprise has the right to prohibit the publication of content, regardless of whether the content is a competitor.
Netizens posted screenshots of the video
The man was exposed to a recording of the dismissal process
Recently, Mr. Yao, a netizen, said that he was an employee of Jiyue, who bought Xiaomi SU7 a few days ago, and was fired by the company for violating the non-compete agreement 5 days later, and did not give him compensation.
On the evening of April 16, Mr. Yao posted on social media a recording of the conversation between HR and him on the day of his dismissal. According to the recording, HR told Mr. Yao that the company recently found that he had recently engaged in acts related to competing products, either directly or indirectly, in his personal name or capacity, including participating in Xiaomi's press conference during his tenure and publishing operational information related to competing products.
The HR said that these were all violations of the non-compete clauses of the employment contract, and after unanimous discussions with the legal department, it was decided to unilaterally terminate Mr. Yao's employment contract.
In this regard, Mr. Yao said that he has no connection with Xiaomi, but just participated in the owner event held by Xiaomi as a Xiaomi SU7 owner, and shared some content on his owner account, but he did not say that Jiyue was bad, nor did he mention any word of Jiyue. He said: "As a Xiaomi owner, can't you share content about Xiaomi normally?"
The reporter of "Seeing" noticed that during the interview, Mr. Yao repeatedly stated that he wanted the other party to present evidence, and HR said that she was only the implementer of the policy and could not provide a complete chain of evidence.
Mr. Yao said that after the interview, the company removed his company account, including all his chat history and emails. It only took an hour from the appointment to the forced resignation.
On the morning of April 17, the legal department of Jiyue Automobile issued a statement on the situation
On the morning of the 17th, @极越汽车法务部官方微博账号发布情况说明称, it was recently rumored on the Internet that Jiyue Automobile was fired because of the employee Yao Moumou's purchase of a certain meter car, which is contrary to the facts.
It is mentioned in the note that the above-mentioned employees, as staff members in charge of social media/private domain operations in the user development department, have registered accounts "Dayao Tok" on multiple social media including Weibo, Bilibili, Xiaohongshu, etc. in their personal names since the beginning of 2024, and continued to operate a group of riders for a certain rice brand.
Jiyue said that according to the timestamp of the publicity of Yao's above-mentioned social media account, his publicity and distribution behavior occurred many times during normal working hours. At the same time, the company's records show that Yao Moumou also had many unexcused absenteeism, in particular, Yao Moumou was absent from work on April 3 and went to Beijing to participate in the pick-up ceremony of a certain meter car, and spread it on the above-mentioned social media platform with the title of "Mr. Lei gave me the door", which was publicly reported by multiple media.
The reporter of "Seeing" noticed that Mr. Yao had posted a live photo of himself participating in the first batch of Xiaomi SU7 delivery ceremony on his personal social platform at 10:31 am on April 3, as well as a photo with Lei Jun. As for a series of questions such as whether he took up his working hours to pick up the car that day, the reporter of "Seeing" had privately messaged Mr. Yao to understand the situation, but did not receive a reply as of press time.
The parties attended the first batch of Xiaomi SU7 delivery ceremony
Lawyer: There is no legal basis for the company to restrict the use of social media by employees
On the morning of April 17, in response to the focus of heated discussions among netizens, Wang Wenguang, deputy director of Hebei Shili Law Firm, told the reporter of Dahe Daily Yu Video "See" that the key is to see whether the employee's release and operation of his personal social account takes up working hours.
Lawyer Wang said that social media such as Weibo and Douyin are open social networking platforms that can be registered and used by the general public, and there is no legal basis for the company to restrict employees from using social media. If an employee uses his spare time to post content related to competing products on his or her social media account purely for personal preference, it does not violate the relevant provisions of the non-compete restriction, and the enterprise cannot unilaterally terminate the labor contract on this basis, which violates the Labor Contract Law.
Similarly, the Labor Law and the Labor Contract Law do not explicitly prohibit employees from using or purchasing competing products, and it is also a violation of the Labor Contract Law if an enterprise dismisses an employee for using or purchasing competing products and unilaterally terminates the labor contract. If the employer unilaterally terminates the employment contract as a result, the employee may request compensation from the company, and if the company refuses to compensate, the employee may apply for labor arbitration, and if he is dissatisfied with the arbitration result, he or she may file a lawsuit with the court.
On the contrary, if the employee uses his personal social media account to post content unrelated to the company's products during work, the company has the right to prohibit the content from being published, regardless of whether the content is a competitor.
"If the enterprise does something unrelated to work during work and the circumstances are serious, the enterprise has the right to terminate the labor contract in accordance with the law for violating the company's labor discipline and system. ”
Source: Dahe Daily Yu Video Editor: Liu Huijie