A security guard in Nanjing was fired for sleeping at work. Why did the court award the unit compensation of 60,000 yuan?

First of all, if he doesn't sign the punishment report, the company won't let him go to work, and he will be dismissed if he is absent from work. The so-called unauthorized work, chatting and sleeping are not true. The duty room is separated from the bathroom by two buildings, and it takes 10 minutes to go back and forth. He may have happened to be out during the inspection. The duty of security personnel is to answer the inquiries of owners and visitors, not to chat. The video that proves that you are sleeping is just a screenshot, not a complete video. Zhang didn't sleep then.

Secondly, Zhang's work place is fixed and the unit duty room is monitored. As long as the unit keeps fixed evidence, it is easy to prove that Zhang left his job by chatting with others. Zhang claimed that the so-called off-duty is to go to the toilet. As long as we find the surveillance video and see if Zhang's departure time exceeds a reasonable period, we can verify it. However, the unit believes that Zhang has signed the punishment report and the evidence is sufficient. This view is biased.

In addition, if it is a serious violation of discipline, the company has the right to give corresponding economic and post penalties according to the seriousness of the case, and has the right to dismiss the relevant responsible personnel without compensation. Although I sleep during office hours, I always sleep within half an hour after lunch break, and because of the delay in going to work that morning, lunch break and lunch break are delayed. Although the company stipulates that you can't sleep during working hours, as an enterprise, in addition to strict requirements for employees, you also need humanistic care. After discovering Liu's above situation twice, the company did not ask Liu to explain or verify Liu's complaint. However, the simple and rude practice of direct dismissal is unconvincing.

It is important to know that the reasons for the violation are not clearly recorded. In the fact investigation, the reasons for the violation reported by three employees were unknown, and the surveillance camera was installed in the duty room. The defendant corrected the evidence in time. If the defendant keeps the plaintiff's disciplinary facts in time, it can be found out. If the defendant fails to provide evidence, he shall bear the adverse consequences of not providing evidence. The defendant manages surveillance and is closest to the evidence. Because the defendant did not keep the surveillance video, he should bear the adverse consequences. Job responsibilities should not exceed reasonable specification requirements. To judge whether the laborer's behavior is a serious violation of discipline, we should make a reasonable judgment based on the industry characteristics of the employer and the specific position of the laborer.