Yuan, an employee of a concrete company, recently went to a grass-roots community hospital for hospitalization due to physical discomfort. His main diagnosis was posterior circulation ischemia. Other diagnoses included grade 3 hypertension, type 2 diabetes and hypercalcemia. Two days before hospitalization, Yuan repeatedly applied for sick leave from the company's legal representative and production manager, but was refused. The reason given by the company is that Yuan did not seek medical treatment at the designated second-class or above comprehensive hospital, and the company does not recognize the certificate from the community health service center. Moreover, during the week when Yuan was hospitalized, the company issued a notice every day stating that Yuan's failure to come to work on that day constituted absenteeism and a serious violation of the company's rules and regulations.
After Yuan was discharged from the hospital, the company refused to arrange work for him or provide job positions on the grounds of his voluntary resignation. I have complete medical leave records and followed the procedures to take leave, but the company rejected my sick leave application and issued a notice to treat me as absent from work. Yuan felt very wronged and believed that the company had illegally terminated the labor contract. He then applied for arbitration and sued the company to the court.
The Sucheng Court held that according to the Labor Contract Law and judicial interpretations, the rules and regulations of the employer must have legality and reasonableness. In this case, Yuan's illness is a common and frequently occurring disease, and his choice to seek medical treatment at a primary healthcare institution meets the requirements of the hierarchical diagnosis and treatment system, which is a legitimate right. The mandatory requirement in the company's "Employee Handbook" for employees to seek medical treatment at a second-class or above hospital and provide a certificate not only increases the medical burden on workers, but also contradicts the national policy of graded diagnosis and treatment, and has no binding force on employees. Based on this, the court determined that the company's termination of the labor contract on the grounds of absenteeism constitutes an illegal act and should bear compensation liability.
The presiding judge of the case told a reporter from Yangtze Evening News Ziniu News that the judgment of this case further clarifies that the rules and regulations of the employer shall not restrict the right of workers to choose medical treatment, and shall not increase the burden on workers through unreasonable medical treatment levels. For the issue of false sick leave, enterprises can manage it by improving the liability clauses for false sick leave, but shall not infringe on the basic health rights and interests of workers on the grounds of "designated hospitals". The court has established a review standard of "rules and regulations shall not increase the burden of medical costs on workers" by negating the effectiveness of the "designated hospital" clause, which has a demonstrative significance for regulating enterprise employment management and safeguarding the legitimate rights and interests of workers.
The judge reminds that the right of enterprise employment management should be exercised within the legal framework, and rules and regulations should balance rationality, legality, and humanization. The judgment of this case provides guidance for enterprises to formulate employment systems in a legal and compliant manner, and also warns employers not to abuse their management power to harm the basic rights and interests of workers.
