Xu Yimin, 31, has been determined to win back his job after he was fired by General Electric (China) Co Ltd last June. In Xu's eyes, his dismissal was totally unfair.
"I just refused to tell the company my customer's production formula," he claimed at the first hearing on January 16 at Jing'an District People's Court.
However, GE insisted that the company had long operated honestly in its business.
"The company fired Xu because he provided fake work experience and continuously wrote emails to threaten and harass fellow workers and company managers," said Li Wen, an attorney for GE (China) from TransAsia Lawyers.
Seeds of discord
Xu joined GE (China) in 1999, and had worked in a department selling organic silicon.
"I finished my Master of Business Administration studies in 2000, and had accumulated sales volumes totalling more than 100 million yuan (US$12.1 million) for GE," he claimed.
However, disputes arose in February last year when Xu was asked to divulge the production formula of one of his customers. Xu reported to the company and warned that it may be about to release a customer's business secret.
"This just sparked the dismissal," he said.
Yet the company said Xu's report had aroused their close attention and it had taken his advice immediately.
"The company quickly informed employees so as to prevent any such thing happening," said Pan Gongbo, another attorney for GE from Pudong Lawyers Firm.
"Yet, he began abusing the company's Internet resources to send threatening emails, which had greatly affected other's daily lives."
The company said the Internet facility was aimed at enhancing the efficiency of its employees' work and for their convenience. However, Xu had taken advantage of that.
"His spread of emails caused a disturbance in the company and also violated company rules," Pan said.
"To make Xu calm down and stop his harassment, GE sent him on holiday and Xu agreed to take time off."
However, Xu insisted that the company had not acknowledged his advice at all.
"I was not informed that my advice had been adopted," he said. "Therefore, I wrote emails seeking an explanation because I just wanted to clarify the facts so as to protect my rights and interests."
On the interpretation of the holiday, Xu differed with the company. To him, it was the company that had forced him to take the holiday.
"I had no other choice but to accept the company's decision for a holiday," he said. "Because the notice read that if I did not obey, I might be fired, then how could I refuse?"
In addition, Xu told the court that in the notice, the company had even forbidden him from contacting any other fellow workers during his leave.
"I was deprived not only working rights but certain freedom," he said.
Excuse refuted
Xu's holiday ended with his dismissal from GE on June 13 last year. However the two-year contract he signed with GE stipulates his employment starts on June 1, 2001 and ends on May 31, 2003.
GE said the dismissal was solely the result of Xu's own behaviour in fabricating work experience.
"His work experience provided to the company failed to match those in the local archives departments," Pan explained. "Some were in conflict and his dishonesty was a serious violation."
GE said its employees still, from time to time, were receiving harassing emails from Xu.
"He still wrote to GE's CEO, and the company even had to resort to the police," Pan said.
Xu insisted that he never provided fake work experience to get a position in the company.
"Some places on my resume may not be that exact," he said. "Yet it cannot prove they were fabricated."
Xu also denied sending emails during his almost four-month long holiday.
"I only wrote before the holiday," he stressed.
On top of that, he raised strong doubts on the so-called "emails" presented by the company to the court.
"They are just some words and sentences on printed papers, and now there is no strong evidence to prove that they once appeared as emails," he said. "And whether they had undergone any changes is not known so far."
In Xu's eyes, his goodwill advice provoked unfair treatment, which had infringed upon his basic rights.
"The dismissal, as a result, was illegal," he said. "Moreover, the contract had not expired at that time."
After the company announced its decision to dismiss him, Xu asked for arbitration but his request was rejected.
In September last year, he brought the case to court.
(Shanghai Star January 28, 2003)
