By outdoor-nature-child.com In an eye-opening case, a 19-year employee of a natural gas sales company in Xinjiang, known as Li, faced demotion and eventual termination after receiving a performance evaluation score below 60. This dramatic shift in Li’s employment status raises questions about what constitutes “competence” in the workplace.
Li had consistently been recognized as an “excellent worker” over his nearly two-decade tenure at the company. However, at the end of 2022, he was unexpectedly deemed “incompetent” in the company’s performance review process. Starting in January 2023, Li was demoted from his position and later reassigned to a different role as an accounting clerk at a gas station. He disputed the reassignment, but after failing to reach an agreement with management, he was ultimately terminated.
Li sought arbitration from the Urumqi Labor and Personnel Dispute Arbitration Commission, which ruled in favor of Li, ordering the company to pay him for overtime. However, it did not uphold all of Li’s claims. Unsettled by this outcome, Li proceeded to file a lawsuit at the Urumqi Tuitehu District People’s Court.
During the court proceedings, Li argued that he had maintained a perfect attendance record and had not committed any significant errors in his work. He also pointed out that he was the only employee labeled “incompetent” and faced demotion and dismissal as a result, which he deemed unreasonable.
The company defended its actions by stating that all moves—from performance assessment to training to termination—were executed in line with established regulations. According to a 2019 notice from the company, employees deemed “incompetent” after the annual performance evaluations would first be demoted and then undergo three months of training. If they remained unqualified post-training, they could be reassigned or have their contracts terminated.
Following this protocol, the company initially decided to award Li a mid-year performance bonus despite labeling him “incompetent” and demoting him to an assistant position. However, after Li did not participate in the theoretical exams during his training period, the company concluded that he still could not fulfill his role and proceeded to end his employment.
The court, upon reviewing the evidence, found that while the company had followed certain processes, these did not sufficiently establish Li’s incompetence. Ultimately, the court ruled that the company failed to provide concrete evidence of Li’s alleged failures and did not adhere to legal standards in declaring him “incompetent.” Thus, the company was ordered to compensate Li for his pending performance bonus and wages owed from the first five months of 2023.
The company, dissatisfied with the ruling, appealed to the Urumqi Intermediate People’s Court, which upheld the initial decision. The judge emphasized that an employee’s competence cannot be judged solely by numerical scores; rather, the assessment must be authentic, legitimate, and reasonable. Furthermore, any significant matters affecting employee rights require broader employee input through meetings or discussions.