Chinese Court Upholds Dismissal of Veteran Pharma Worker, Sparking Nationwide Labor‑Law Debate.

Fu began his tenure with the company more than two decades ago, signing two successive two‑year labor contracts that were later extended. From 2022 onward, his performance record deteriorated. Company files document 17 separate work errors, ranging from mislabeled bottle expiration dates to the improper use of packaging qualification certificates and incorrect product packing lists. Each infraction was recorded in written “Punishment Notices” that Fu signed, acknowledging the violations.

Attendance problems compounded the performance issues. The firm’s internal regulations – which had been lawfully posted and were known to all staff – stipulated that cumulative absenteeism exceeding five days could justify termination. Between 29 July 2022 and 27 March 2024, Fu missed work 37 times and arrived late on 23 occasions. After a particularly egregious late arrival in October 2023, he was asked to sign a “guarantee letter” pledging to improve his punctuality under penalty of dismissal. He signed, yet his attendance did not improve.

On 30 April 2024 the company invoked its attendance policy and terminated Fu’s employment, citing “serious violation of company rules.” In response, Fu filed a labor arbitration claim that was rejected, prompting him to sue the firm in the Qinbei District People's Court. He demanded 300,000 yuan for illegal termination, 60,000 yuan for the differential in double wages he alleged he was owed because he never received an open‑ended contract, and another 60,000 yuan for damages stemming from the company's failure to issue a 离职证明 (certificate of employment separation). The total claim amounted to 360,000 yuan.

The first‑instance judgment, delivered by the Qinzhou Beiqu People’s Court, rejected every element of Fu’s claim. The court held that the company’s dismissal was lawful because the employee had repeatedly breached well‑documented attendance and performance rules, and that the employer had complied with all procedural requirements, including the publicization of its regulations and the issuance of written notices. A subsequent appeal to the second‑instance court upheld the original ruling, cementing the company’s victory.

The case’s rapid spread on platforms such as Weibo reflects several underlying concerns. For many netizens, the dispute illustrates the delicate balance between an employer’s right to enforce discipline and an employee’s expectation of fair treatment. The sizable compensation Fu sought – and the court’s categorical denial – sparked vigorous debate about the extent to which Chinese labor statutes protect workers versus granting employers leeway to manage their workforce.

Legal experts point to the case as a cautionary tale for both sides. Companies are reminded to maintain meticulous records of attendance, performance, and disciplinary action, and to ensure that internal policies are transparent and legally compliant. Workers, meanwhile, see a reminder that the legal system may not side with them when documented misconduct exists, underscoring the importance of understanding contractual obligations and company rules before pursuing litigation.

Beyond the courtroom, the episode has prompted broader reflection on work ethic and accountability in Chinese society. Commentators note that the public’s reaction – largely supportive of the firm’s decision – signals a cultural shift toward valuing reliability and adherence to workplace norms, especially in sectors such as pharmaceuticals where errors can have serious safety implications.

The ramifications may also extend to policy. Legislators and regulators could be encouraged to revisit provisions in the Labor Contract Law concerning “serious violations of company regulations,” clarifying what constitutes sufficient grounds for dismissal and how absenteeism should be quantified. There is also a growing call for enhanced mechanisms in labor dispute mediation and arbitration to reduce the burden on courts and to provide clearer pathways for both employers and employees.

In sum, the Fu Yu case serves as a microcosm of China’s evolving labor landscape: a veteran employee’s repeated absences and performance lapses colliding with a corporate governance framework that the courts ultimately upheld. While Fu’s bid for 360,000 yuan fell flat, the discussion it ignited continues to shape public opinion, corporate practice and, potentially, future legislative reforms.