Recently, the news that an employee of an auto company was fired for buying a competitor's model has sparked heated discussions on the Internet. The employee broke the news on social media that after he bought a Xiaomi car, his company, Jiyue Auto, fired him for violating the non-compete agreement and did not pay any compensation. This incident caused a quarrel among netizens, and also made people reflect on the reasonable boundaries of companies firing employees.
He was expelled for posting his car on social media
The employee, named Yao, works in the marketing department of Jiyue Automobile. After buying the car, he posted a photo of himself with Xiaomi's founder Lei Jun on social media and hyped up the SUV. Five days later, he was suddenly fired by Jiyue for "violating the non-compete agreement" and deleted the company's account on the spot.
Yao then released a recording of the dismissal conversation with HR. HR's claim that he attended a competitor's event and posted relevant content constituted an act of disloyalty to the company. The entire dismissal process took only 1 hour, and Yao felt unacceptable about it.
The car company said in a statement that it was reasonable to fire
In this regard, Jiyue Automobile issued an official statement, saying that the dismissal of Yao was completely reasonable and legal. According to the statement, Yao has been posting content about competitors' models on social media for a long time, which seriously violates the company's system and has problems such as absenteeism to buy cars. The company needs to protect its own interests, so it terminates its labor contract.
The statement also accused Yao of continuing to publish false information and damage the company's image after being fired. Jiyue Auto said it would reserve the right to legal accountability and denied that there were rules restricting employees from purchasing competing models.
There is a dispute over the protection of employees' rights and interests
The incident sparked heated discussions online. On the one hand, companies do need to protect trade secrets and avoid employees disseminating information for competitors. On the other hand, the legitimate rights of employees as consumers should also be protected, and whether employees' consumption choices can be arbitrarily restricted also needs to be discussed.
Some legal experts have pointed out that if the company can prove that the employee's conduct did violate the non-compete agreement and harm the interests, the termination is not improper. However, the company should also act prudently to prevent infringement of the legitimate rights and interests of employees and negative impact on corporate culture.
Clarify the non-compete clause and balance the rights of all parties
This incident reflects the contradiction between the non-compete clause and the protection of employees' rights and interests. Some experts suggest that enterprises need to make the non-compete clause clear and reasonable, and not excessively restrict employees' consumption rights; The decision of dismissal should be prudent and weigh the actual damage caused to the enterprise by the employee's behavior;
Strengthen the construction of corporate culture, so that employees consciously abide by business ethics; Fully listen to the opinions of employees to prevent the company's system from being too rigid; Reasonably compensate employees who are fired to avoid causing panic. Only by balancing the interests of all parties can such disputes be avoided to the greatest extent. It is believed that with the further improvement of the law and corporate culture, the relationship between enterprises and employees will become more and more harmonious.
The whole network has been opened to protect rights and carry plagiarism reports