Wang, nearly 60 years old, went out after submitting a leave request to the company. The company believed he did not follow the leave procedures announced in the QQ group and terminated his labor contract on grounds of unauthorized absence. However, Wang stated he could not use the internet and was unaware of the QQ group notice. A dispute arose between Wang and the company. Recently, the Chongqing Fifth Intermediate People's Court ruled in the second instance that the company had breached the contract.

On August 16, 2012, Wang wrote a leave request to the company, covering August 16 to 31. On August 21, the company announced the leave policy in an internal QQ group and informed Wang in the group that he must submit a written leave application by the 24th to complete the approval process, or his labor contract would be terminated. Investigation revealed that Wang was neither a member of nor aware of this QQ group, and was uninformed about the updated leave policy and related content.

Dissatisfied with the company's unilateral termination of his labor contract, Wang sued the company in the Chongqing Jiulongpo District People's Court. The court of first instance held that the plaintiff was not a member of the QQ group and, being nearly 60 years old, it was reasonable that he could not use QQ. It found that the defendant had failed to inform the plaintiff of its leave management policy. The court ruled that the defendant's unilateral termination of the labor contract on grounds of violating company rules lacked legal basis. The company was ordered to pay Wang economic compensation of 19,247 yuan for the termination of the labor relationship. The company appealed. After trial, the Chongqing Fifth Intermediate People's Court issued a second-instance judgment, upholding the original verdict.

QQ and WeChat evidence has limitations.

According to the Labor Contract Law, when a company terminates a labor contract on the grounds that an employee has seriously violated company regulations, it must have previously informed the employee of the relevant rules. In this case, the company only posted its leave policy in an internal QQ group after receiving the plaintiff's leave request, but Wang was not a member of that QQ group and could not access the posted content. Therefore, the court determined that the company failed to fulfill its obligation to inform in advance, and its unilateral termination of the contract violated the law.

Furthermore, voice and text evidence from instant messaging tools like QQ and WeChat presents significant challenges and limitations in the authentication process. First, social tools such as QQ and WeChat often feature two-way or even multi-way communication involving multiple accounts, which increases the difficulty of fact-finding.

Additionally, voice and text evidence from instant messaging tools like QQ and WeChat also has limitations in terms of probative value. Due to the ease of modification, editing, and account deletion associated with QQ and WeChat evidence, its probative value is often limited without inspection, preservation, or notarization. Among instant messaging tools, text messages are relatively reliable because mobile carriers store them, and if the other party later denies the content, the records can be retrieved from the carrier as evidence.

(Legal Daily)