In recent events coming from Nanjing, China, a female teaching assistant faced severe repercussions after she went hiking during her day off and failed to respond promptly to work-related inquiries from parents in a group chat. This resulted in multiple supervisors holding her accountable over the phone and ultimately led to the termination of her employment contract.
According to reports from the Yangtze Evening Post, the individual involved, referred to as Ms. Lu, joined Nanjing Biyan Haoxing Education Technology Co., Ltd. in March of this year, taking on the role of a graduate student guidance assistant. On October 17, prior to her day off, she decided to hike in a mountainous area. Unfortunately, due to poor mobile phone reception, she was unable to see the questions posted by parents in the work-related group chat in a timely manner. After approximately five hours of being out of contact, she reestablished communication and discovered that she had been targeted for accountability by the company’s management.
That evening, Ms. Lu received calls from several supervisors seeking explanations and criticizing her in multiple workgroup chats. Company policy emphasized that inquiries from parents, who are considered key clients, must be answered promptly. A supervisor even mentioned in the departmental group that employees should check their phones at least every three hours on their days off to manage work-related messages effectively.
Ms. Lu expressed her concerns, arguing that being expected to check her phone and respond to clients during her days off effectively amounts to requiring employees to be on call at all times. She pointed out that although the company officially stipulates a five-day workweek consisting of eight-hour days, in reality, assistants often need to manage inquiries from students and parents during the evenings and on weekends, leading to disputes regarding availability on rest days.
On October 23, Ms. Lu found herself removed from several work-related groups, and her official work account was disabled. When she showed up to work on October 25, she was unable to access the office and subsequently contacted the police to mediate the situation, but this did not yield any results. On the same day, the company delivered a notice of termination of her employment contract, citing her engagement in public disputes, the escalation of issues within the group chat, and accusations of spreading misleading information online, which they claimed had resulted in negative impacts on the company.
Ms. Lu vehemently disagreed with these accusations, asserting that she was merely voicing legitimate concerns regarding her labor rights, and deemed her dismissal as an unlawful termination of her employment contract.
She raised foundational issues about the company’s ongoing requirement for employees to be on call during their off-hours, which she argued could be seen as a form of forced overtime. In light of this, she has applied for labor arbitration and provided over 900 screenshots as evidence of her claims regarding excessive work demands.
Documents provided by Ms. Lu indicated that teaching assistants were expected to check their work accounts regularly on their days off and promptly respond to inquiries from students and parents. Moreover, the timeliness of employee responses to clients and any complaints lodged against them were considered in performance evaluations.
Ms. Lu pointed out that her responsibilities included guiding students in their postgraduate applications and that her job entailed more than just simple message replies; it involved researching professional materials, coordinating with teachers, and dealing with various academic issues. Sometimes, addressing a single inquiry could require a significant amount of time, making her work on rest days far from just checking her phone.
She also highlighted that the company’s performance metrics were linked to client satisfaction, complaints, and refunds, which meant that even if employees failed to reply promptly during non-working hours, their evaluations could still be adversely affected.
A former colleague corroborated this concerning workplace culture, stating that they too had been held accountable by supervisors for not responding to client messages for just a few hours on their day off.
In an interview with the media, lawyer Chen Kai, a partner at Beijing Gaopeng (Nanjing) Law Firm, remarked that mandating frequent phone checks during rest days constitutes illegal disguised overtime. He emphasized that if an employee is merely defending their rights or seeking clarification on their dismissal, the company cannot justifiably terminate their employment based on such grounds as it does not meet the legal criteria for dismissal.