近日，廣東某家科技公司因員工在廁所長時(shí)間玩手機(jī)將其辭退，公司還將其如廁玩手機(jī)的照片附在開除通告中，發(fā)至400余人的員工群。

A technology company in Guangdong province has sparked controversy after dismissing a young employee over prolonged phone use in a restroom and circulating a disciplinary notice in a staff group chat with photos taken through a door gap.

4月28日，涉事員工萬先生稱，自己剛滿18歲，對這種事情沒有經(jīng)驗(yàn)，公司的解釋是“沒拍到臉，不要想太多”。

Wan, 18, said he was told not to "overthink it" because his face was not visible in the photos.

此前，該公司法定代表人表示，公司沒有在廁所裝監(jiān)控，相關(guān)圖片是由公司管理人員發(fā)現(xiàn)涉事員工在廁所內(nèi)玩手機(jī)后，通過門縫拍攝而得。被處分的員工還處在試用期，經(jīng)常找不到人。

針對網(wǎng)絡(luò)上“公司在廁所裝監(jiān)控”等不實(shí)信息，其稱公司行政部門員工已去派出所報(bào)警并備案。

The company denied installing restroom cameras, saying a manager took the photos through a gap in the stall door after finding him using his phone inside. It added that Wan was still on probation and was frequently away from his post.

“如廁爭議”頻發(fā)，邊界在哪里？

隨后，該事件引發(fā)了網(wǎng)友對“如廁自由”以及員工隱私權(quán)話題的討論。

廣信君達(dá)律師事務(wù)所程軼圣律師指出，《勞動(dòng)法》第三條明確勞動(dòng)者享有“勞動(dòng)安全衛(wèi)生保護(hù)權(quán)利”，如廁作為基本生理需求受法律保障，如廁時(shí)使用手機(jī)，本身并不違反相關(guān)法律法規(guī)?！芭袛嗟暮诵臉?biāo)準(zhǔn)在于是否超過明顯的合理范圍。”程軼圣表示，若員工如廁次數(shù)較多、時(shí)間較長，超出明顯合理范圍，可能涉嫌違反勞動(dòng)紀(jì)律和公司相關(guān)制度（如有）。

The incident has reignited debate over workplace boundaries, particularly employees' right to reasonable restroom breaks and personal privacy.

Cheng Yisheng, a lawyer at ETR Law Firm, said Chinese labor law protects workers' basic physiological needs, including restroom use, and that using a phone in the restroom is not inherently unlawful. The key issue, he said, is whether the frequency or duration exceeds a reasonable limit and breaches workplace rules.

值得注意的是，近年來，職場“如廁爭議”頻發(fā)。北京順義區(qū)法院審理的一宗案例顯示，消防中控員李某因腹痛如廁3分鐘，被公司以“擅自離崗”為由解雇。法院認(rèn)定，李某離崗理由正當(dāng)、時(shí)間短暫，且其曾嘗試通過微信聯(lián)系同事補(bǔ)位，已盡到審慎注意義務(wù)，不存在主觀過失，最終判定公司支付賠償金6萬余元。

而江蘇南通的劉某，在一個(gè)月內(nèi)11次長時(shí)間滯留衛(wèi)生間，單日最長達(dá)6小時(shí)21分鐘，且無法舉證其間履行了工作職責(zé)。法院認(rèn)為，正常如廁應(yīng)即去即回，劉某的行為已明顯超出合理生理范疇，構(gòu)成實(shí)質(zhì)性脫崗，故支持公司合法解除合同。

Recent court rulings have taken a case-by-case approach. A court in Beijing's Shunyi district ruled in favor of a worker dismissed over a three-minute restroom break due to stomach pain, while a court in Nantong, Jiangsu province, upheld the firing of an employee who spent excessive time in the restroom, including more than six hours in a single day.

律師：門縫取證涉嫌侵權(quán)

此外，在廣東某科技公司事件中，管理人員通過門縫拍攝員工在衛(wèi)生間內(nèi)使用手機(jī)的照片作為處罰依據(jù)，這一取證方式也引發(fā)廣泛爭議。程軼圣指出，《民法典》第一千零三十二條明確規(guī)定，自然人享有隱私權(quán)，任何組織或者個(gè)人不得以刺探、侵?jǐn)_、泄露、公開等方式侵害他人的隱私權(quán)，而私密空間是隱私權(quán)保護(hù)的核心范疇。

“廁所屬于典型的私密空間，人們在廁所內(nèi)的如廁行為屬于私密活動(dòng)，具有高度的隱私期待?！背梯W圣表示，未經(jīng)員工同意擅自拍攝員工如廁場景，直接侵犯了員工對私密空間和私密活動(dòng)的隱私權(quán)。最高人民法院關(guān)于適用《中華人民共和國民事訴訟法》的解釋第一百零六條規(guī)定，以嚴(yán)重侵害他人合法權(quán)益、違反法律禁止性規(guī)定、嚴(yán)重違背公序良俗的方法獲取的證據(jù)，不得作為定案依據(jù)。

管理人員通過門縫拍攝員工在衛(wèi)生間內(nèi)的照片，因涉嫌嚴(yán)重侵害員工隱私權(quán)，有很大可能被依法排除。“核心判斷標(biāo)準(zhǔn)是，證據(jù)的取得方式是否嚴(yán)重侵害他人合法權(quán)益、違反法律禁止性規(guī)定、嚴(yán)重違背公序良俗?！?/p>

Legal experts also questioned the company's method of gathering evidence, saying restrooms are private spaces and that unauthorized photography there may violate privacy rights under China's Civil Code. Evidence obtained through such improper means could also be ruled inadmissible in court.

來源：中國青年報(bào)綜合羊城晚報(bào)、廣州日報(bào)、極目新聞等

跟著China Daily

精讀英語新聞

“無痛”學(xué)英語，每天20分鐘就夠！