Severely impacts the company’s and the mall project’s operations; dismissed for not wearing the required work uniform.

　　[Longhu Net Report] Mr. He signed a one-year labor contract with his company. Although the contract has not yet expired, he was dismissed after a partner filed a complaint over his failure to wear the company uniform. On August 17, 2008, Mr. He entered into an employment contract with the Nanjing branch of Beiye Xinxi Brothers Logistics Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Beiye Logistics”), becoming a regular employee with a one-year term. He worked as a delivery driver. Around 9:30 p.m. on July 4, 2009, after finishing work, Mr. He took his son to dine at a restaurant on the second floor of a home‑furnishings mall. Following the meal, he and his son entered the mall’s restricted warehouse area. This zone also housed an office of Beiye Logistics, where goods were routinely loaded and unloaded. As usual, Mr. He intended to take the freight elevator down. On the morning of July 5, the head of Beiye Logistics summoned Mr. He for a discussion, explaining that on the evening of the 4th, he had entered the mall’s warehouse restricted area without wearing his work uniform—a practice that greatly displeased the mall. The mall demanded that Beiye Logistics take corrective action and issued a formal warning to the company. Citing Mr. He’s actions as having disrupted the project coordination between Beiye Logistics and the mall, the company ordered him to transfer from the Nanjing branch to its Shanghai headquarters. Unwilling to leave Nanjing, Mr. He found himself confronted with the company’s decision to terminate his employment, instructing him to cease reporting to work the following day. Believing the company had no legitimate grounds for dismissal, Mr. He refused to submit a resignation letter. Regarding his entry into the warehouse restricted area, Mr. He told reporters that the company does require employees to wear their uniforms when entering or exiting this zone; however, the policy explicitly stipulates that any violation will result in a fine of 200 yuan upon discovery. Mr. He argued that the company could impose such a penalty. On the afternoon of July 10, a reporter contacted the head of Beiye Logistics’ Nanjing branch, who confirmed that Mr. He was indeed an employee. According to the manager, several staff members had previously tried to stop Mr. He from entering the restricted area, but he persisted. The manager further stated that Mr. He’s conduct had seriously undermined the smooth operation of the company’s project with the mall, justifying his dismissal. When asked whether dismissing an employee solely for failing to wear a uniform once—thus triggering dissatisfaction from a partner—was excessively harsh, the manager cited additional reasons, including Mr. He’s habitual laziness, lack of initiative, and poor interpersonal relations with colleagues. The manager maintained that Mr. He’s termination was based on violations of the company’s internal regulations and therefore declined to offer any severance pay. Attorney Cai Yihong of Jiangsu Hailang Law Firm commented that using a single instance of not wearing a uniform—which led to a partner’s dissatisfaction—as grounds for dismissal is insufficient. Under the new Labor Law, if an employer unilaterally terminates an employee, it must compensate the employee with one month’s salary.