A Nanjing Court Fined a Company ¥110,000 for Firing an Engineer Over Phone Glances
theme: fancy highlight: monokai
Seeing this news, many workers' first reaction might not be surprise, but a chill down the spine.
Because who hasn't looked at their phone at work?
Checking DingTalk work messages, replying to client information, searching for work-related materials, or even just going to the bathroom or getting a glass of water — all can be recorded by cameras. But once a company wants to find fault with you, these originally ordinary actions can be reinterpreted as "not working seriously," "negative work attitude," or even "serious disciplinary violation."
In this Nanjing case, technical engineer Lin was fired by his company exactly like this.
The company said he was "slacking off" at work, with evidence including leaving his seat for 9 minutes, talking with a colleague for 4 minutes, starting his computer 8 minutes late, looking at his phone, leaving his post 3 minutes early, and so on — 14 times in total.
In the end, the court did not side with the company.
Both the first and second instance courts held that the company had no evidence proving Lin's actions were unrelated to work, nor did they reach the level of serious disciplinary violation. The company ultimately had to pay wages and compensation totaling over 110,000 yuan.
Workers should certainly applaud this outcome.
But what is truly worth discussing here is not "whether employees can look at their phones at work," but:
On what basis should a company judge whether someone is working?
Looking at a phone does not equal not working
Lin was a technical engineer working on App products. He explained in court that his phone was a work tool, used to research competitors, experience products, and submit daily work reports documenting his research.
This explanation is actually very normal.
Nowadays, much work simply cannot happen only in front of a computer. Product people need to experience Apps, operations people need to view platform content, and technical people may need to test mobile functionality.
Even for roles outside these, an employee looking at their phone for a few minutes during work hours cannot be directly equated to laziness.
The problem is that the company only proved "he picked up his phone" but did not prove "his phone use was unrelated to work."
There is a big gap between these two things.
If a company wants to determine an employee has violated discipline, it cannot rely solely on "I saw an action." It must also present complete evidence proving that this action genuinely affected work and was serious enough to justify terminating the labor contract.
Otherwise, today it's looking at a phone, tomorrow it could be going to the restroom, and the day after it could be exchanging a few more words with a colleague.
As long as the boss is willing, any ordinary behavior can be packaged as a problem.
The company has no tasks for you, yet demands you constantly appear busy
In this case, there is another detail that is particularly easy to overlook:
After Lin returned to the company from an external assignment, the company did not assign him specific tasks, only requiring him to do competitive research and daily reports.
This is very awkward.
The company had no clear projects, no clear workload, and no specific delivery standards, yet demanded the employee sit at his desk every day and look constantly busy.
So what exactly is the employee supposed to do?
If he stares at the computer all the time, the company can say he is inefficient and produces little; if he uses his phone for research, the company can say he is slacking off; if he talks with colleagues, the company says he is chatting during work hours; if he leaves his seat, the company says he is not following discipline.
The core of this management style is not getting employees to do things well, but demanding employees constantly maintain a posture of "working hard."
To put it bluntly, the company does not care whether you produce results; it only cares whether you look like you are working.
This is very common in many workplaces.
Some people finish their tasks in half an hour but dare not leave immediately, fearing others will think they have nothing to do. So they can only open a document and sit in front of the computer to kill time.
Others have clearly completed the day's work but dare not shut down their computer, because the company defaults to "people who leave late work harder."
Over time, what employees learn is not how to improve efficiency, but how to fake busyness.
This brings no benefit to the company. Truly capable people will eventually become overly cautious, afraid that their normal state will be misread.
"Serious disciplinary violation" cannot become the company's universal excuse
Many companies' employee handbooks contain the phrase "serious violation of company rules and regulations may result in termination of the labor contract."
This statement itself is not problematic.
Employees indeed cannot be chronically absent, refuse to work, or intentionally harm company interests. If someone is truly seriously negligent, it is reasonable for the company to handle it according to law.
But in reality, some companies particularly like to treat "serious disciplinary violation" as a wildcard.
As soon as an employee does not meet the manager's expectations, they play this card:
Arriving a few minutes late, sitting less, glancing at a phone a few times, poor work results — counted as serious violation;
Even more absurdly, disagreeing with a leader's opinion can also be counted as an attitude problem.
But "serious" is not for the company alone to decide.
A person leaving their seat for 9 minutes and a person being absent without leave for several days are clearly not the same in nature. Looking at a phone for a few minutes at work and using company time to play games long-term cannot be compared either.
More importantly, before terminating a labor contract, the company should at least investigate the matter clearly and listen to the employee's explanation, rather than deciding to fire first and then collecting materials to support the firing.
If an employee says they were doing competitive research, the company should verify daily reports, work output, and specific content.
If the company has not even verified these and directly defines "looking at a phone" as "slacking off," then what it is handling is not a disciplinary violation, but its own subjective speculation.
The court protects not slacking off, but the dignity of ordinary people
Some people, upon seeing the court's decision, will say:
"So does that mean employees can now play on their phones freely?"
No.
The court did not say employees can casually play on their phones under the pretext of work, nor did it say companies cannot manage work discipline.
What the court truly rejected is a simplistic and crude logic:
"I saw you looking at your phone on the surveillance footage, so you are slacking off; so you are seriously violating discipline; so I can fire you."
If this logic were accepted, the workplace would become very frightening.
Because an employee can never prove that every single time they look at their phone is for work. You might just happen to be checking a client message, or just happen to be looking up information, or just taking a two-minute break.
If a company only needs to provide a piece of surveillance video to define an employee's behavior as a serious disciplinary violation, then the employee has no sense of security at the company.
They are not working; they are undergoing real-time judgment.
The greatest comfort this case gives to workers is that the court did not accept this reasoning.
The court demanded the company present more complete evidence and also required the company to bear corresponding management responsibility. An employee cannot be deprived of the right to continue working just because a few of their actions "did not look enough like working."
Workers should not just be angry; they need to keep evidence
An important reason Lin was able to win this lawsuit is that he submitted work daily reports every day, which could explain what he had done and also explain why he used his phone.
This is actually a very practical reminder for many workers.
If the company has not assigned you clear tasks, it is best to leave records through email, work groups, or daily reports. Clearly write down what you completed today, what you are advancing, and where you are stuck.
If work requires using a phone, do not rely solely on verbal explanation. Keep records of research content, test results, and client communication.
Not because we should live cautiously, but because in reality, once a dispute arises, what can ultimately speak is often not your memory, but these work traces.
The type of person who suffers most in the workplace is the one who clearly did a lot of things but left no records. When the company accuses them of "you did no work," they can only repeatedly explain: "I really did."
But labor disputes are not about who shouts louder; they are about who can produce evidence.
Final thoughts
Personally, I do not support employees playing on their phones for long periods at work, nor do I think all "slacking off" should be forgiven.
But I oppose even more companies treating employees as a coordinate on a surveillance screen, starting to suspect them of being lazy as soon as they are found not continuously staring at the computer.
Work is not imprisonment.
A person briefly leaving their seat, looking at their phone for a few minutes, or exchanging a few words with a colleague cannot in themselves prove they have not completed their work. Judging whether an employee is qualified ultimately depends on whether tasks are completed and whether results meet standards, not on how many hours a day they maintain a posture of "working seriously."
If a company has no tasks to assign but demands employees sit there pretending to be busy; has no actual losses but uses a few minutes of leaving a seat and looking at a phone as grounds for firing; does not communicate, does not verify, and directly pushes employees onto the position of "serious disciplinary violation" —
Then what it truly lacks may not be a stricter employee handbook, but the most basic management capability.
This 110,000 yuan compensation is not just for Lin's wages and losses.
It is also a reminder to all workers:
You can be responsible for your work, but you do not need to prove your innocence for every moment of drinking water, leaving your seat, or looking at your phone.
And those companies accustomed to using surveillance to find employee faults should also understand:
Employees do not work seriously just because cameras are constantly filming. A truly trustworthy team relies on clear tasks, reasonable evaluation, and at least basic mutual respect.