“不涨工资干不了”！法院：口头辞职有效

4月22日，上海市总工会“申工社”披露一起案件。

A Shanghai court has ruled that an employee's heated remark about quitting during a salary dispute constituted a valid oral resignation, rejecting his claim for wrongful termination compensation.

2021年6月25日，小李与公司经理协商薪资待遇时，经理明确拒绝涨薪，双方言语产生争执，小李一气之下说“不涨工资这活干不了”。

The case, disclosed on Wednesday by the city's federation of trade unions, involved a worker surnamed Li who clashed with his manager on June 25, 2021, after being denied a pay raise, saying in frustration that he could not continue under the current salary.

随后6月26日、27日，小李均正常到岗工作，公司也未提出异议。期间，公司厂长找小李核实情况时，他也表示：“工资这么低，这活怎么干？”

6月27日下班后，公司经理召开员工会议，当众宣称小李已主动辞职。小李觉得这是经理对自己的报复，认为自己既没有递交过任何书面辞职手续，也没提出过口头辞职，所以并没有在意，也没有争吵。6月28日，小李照常通勤到公司上班，却被公司单方告知已离职、无需在岗。

小李当即与公司经理沟通理论，明确否认辞职。但经理态度强硬，告知小李已经没有他的岗位了。事后，公司单方出具离职证明，将离职原因标注为劳动者辞职。

He reported to work as usual over the next two days and reiterated his dissatisfaction when questioned. At a staff meeting two days later on June 27, the manager announced that Li had resigned, drawing no public objection from him. When Li returned the following day, he was told his employment had ended, and the company later issued a separation certificate citing voluntary resignation.

2021年7月9日，小李向劳动人事争议仲裁委员会申请仲裁，要求公司支付违法解除劳动合同赔偿金107240元、通勤费1100元。

该仲裁委员会裁决公司支付交通费600元，驳回小李其他仲裁请求。

小李不服将公司诉至法院，请求公司支付赔偿金107240元、通勤费1100元。

Li applied for labor arbitration on July 9, 2021, seeking over 100,000 yuan in compensation and commuting expenses. The panel awarded partial transport costs but rejected the compensation claim, prompting him to take the case to court.

法院判决：口头辞职有效

一审核心争议为小李系主动口头辞职，还是公司违法辞退。法院查实，小李因薪资问题向经理口头表示不干了，厂长核实情况时其未否认，公司开会通报其辞职，小李在场亦未提出异议。

依据公司经员工学习确认的规章制度，口头辞职具备效力，公司据此出具离职证明合规。小李后续正常到岗，不影响口头辞职事实的认定。

小李主张公司违法解除、索要赔偿金，缺乏事实与法律依据，法院不予支持。

The court found that his remark during the dispute — combined with his failure to deny the resignation when confirmed by management and announced publicly — constituted a valid oral resignation under company rules. His continued attendance at work, it said, did not negate that expressed intent.

最终一审判决：驳回小李全部诉讼请求。

二审法院经审理查明，案件事实与一审判决认定的内容完全一致，本案争议焦点依旧是小李是否属于主动辞职。小李未能提供有效证据证明自身被违法辞退的主张，同时公司规章制度明确规定员工可书面或口头提出辞职，小李在厂长核实辞职事宜、公司召开全体员工会议通报其辞职时，均未作出否认表示，一审法院据此认定其口头辞职成立并无不当。

二审法院判决驳回小李的上诉，维持原判，该判决为终审判决。

Both the trial and appellate courts concluded that Li failed to prove unlawful dismissal, with the higher court upholding the original ruling as final.

“申工社”指出，职场中， 由于一气之下的言论因小失大的案例不在少数：

上海某汽车销售公司员工雷某，与总经理协商解约未果发生争执，总经理当场明确要求其次日不用再来上班。事后总经理虽微信否认辞退，但法院认定该言论属于职务行为，已构成违法解除劳动合同。一二审均判决公司支付违法解除赔偿金72232元。

彭某是上海某公司员工。2020年某天，老板争吵时辱骂员工“滚”，员工未到岗上班，公司随后以旷工为由将其解雇。二审法院判决：老板言语指令模糊、事后未要求员工返岗，公司解除劳动合同属于违法解除，支付员工违法解除赔偿金15.98万元。

The trade union warned that offhand remarks made in the heat of workplace disputes can carry lasting consequences. In contrast to Li's case, where his own words were deemed to reflect a clear intent to resign, other disputes have hinged on employers' statements.

In one case, a manager told an employee not to return after a disagreement. This was later deemed an unlawful dismissal despite subsequent denials, with the court ordering compensation of over 70,000 yuan.

In another case, an employer's instruction to "get out" was ruled too ambiguous to justify termination, awarding the employee nearly 160,000 yuan in compensation.

来源：中国青年报 申工社 中国裁判文书网

跟着China Daily

精读英语新闻

“无痛”学英语，每天20分钟就够！