Chinese man fired for spending 6 hours a shift in restroom, courts back employer

In December 2014, Wang had to undergo medical treatment for an “anal problem” which was also the beginning of his trips to the restroom.

While working everyone needs a short break from their laptop or computer. It helps one to relax for a bit during a hectic day. For your short breaks, you may usually go for a short walk, chat with your colleague or even take a coffee break. However, a man in China was fired for spending up to six hours a day in the lavatory at work. Following this, the errant employee filed a case for unfair termination of his job citing medical reasons but even the Chinese courts ruled in favour of his employers, reported South China Morning Post (SCPM).

The employee, whose surname is Wang, joined the company in April 2006 and had been working on a non-fixed term contract since April 2013.

But in December 2014, Wang had to undergo medical treatment for an “anal problem” which was also the beginning of his trips to the restroom. The treatment was successful yet Wang had to continue his trips to the lavatory as he experienced persistent pain which meant he was forced to spend between three and six hours a day in the restroom since July 2015.

According to the company records, between September 7 and 17 that year, Wang made trips to the restroom two to three times a shift a day and in that period, he made toilet visits around 22 times. It was not the times he went but how much time he spent there. The extended restroom stays ranged from 47 minutes to 3 hours.

On September 23, 2015, the company terminated the contract stating provisions in the employee handbook regarding tardiness, early departures and unauthorised absence from work. Following this, Wang filed for negotiation and urged them to let him continue the non-fixed-term labour contract and his reinstatement.

The publication also reported that Wang lost the court case. The China courts said that Wang’s prolonged daily stays in the restroom went beyond reasonable physiological needs and that the employer’s decision to terminate him was legal and justified.