Summary of the Core Content
This article focuses on the controversy surrounding the recognition of an industrial injury for Xing Zhi, a programmer from Shenzhen: After clocking in at the company, Xing Zhi died suddenly while using the restroom before reaching his work station. The Shenzhen Human Resources and Social Security Bureau refused to recognize it as an industrial injury, citing the reason that he was “not at the work station,” which has sparked public debate. The article uses this case to analyze several key issues in the recognition of industrial injuries—specifically, the controversial “48-hour” standard for deeming an injury to be work-related, the difference between a work station and a workplace, comparisons of judicial practices in similar cases, and the original intent of the industrial insurance system. It argues that the Shenzhen Human Resources and Social Security Bureau’s decision is too rigid and goes against the legislative purpose of protecting employees’ rights.
Detailed Analysis
1. The Controversial Point: Does Not Reaching the Work Station After Clocking In Mean One Is “Not at the Work Station”?
What puzzles the public most about Xing Zhi’s case is that, although he had clocked in and entered the company, his death was deemed not to be work-related simply because he did not go to his work station first.
- The Bureau’s Reason: The work station is on the 11th floor, and since Xing Zhi went to the restroom on the 2nd floor and did not engage in any work-related activities, it does not meet the criteria for a sudden illness resulting in death “during working hours at the work station.”
- Public Confusion: Does one have to be at the work station, turn on the computer, and start coding to be considered “on duty”? Using the restroom is a basic physiological need; isn’t that part of working? After all, no one can work while holding in their urine. Meeting such needs is essential for better concentration, so shouldn’t it be considered an extension of the work station?
2. The Controversial “48-Hour” Standard for Deeming an Injury to Be Work-Related: Why Is It Always Criticized?
The requirement that a sudden illness must lead to death within 48 hours to be recognized as a work-related injury is a long-standing issue:
- The Origin of the Standard: It was designed to balance the sustainability of the industrial insurance fund (to prevent it from being endlessly subsidized) with employees’ interests, but there is no scientific basis for this time limit. With advances in medical technology, many patients can survive beyond 48 hours.
- Moral Risk: Families may choose to stop treatment within 48 hours to qualify for industrial injury benefits; conversely, if treatment exceeds 48 hours, even if the illness was work-related, it may not be recognized as an industrial injury.
- Time Calculation Confusion: There is no consensus on when the 48-hour period begins—some courts use the initial diagnosis at the hospital, others the time of arrival by ambulance; for death, some consider the cessation of heartbeat, while others use brain death as the benchmark, leading to inconsistent rulings across different courts.
3. Work Station ≠ Fixed Location: How Is It Defined Legally?
Many people confuse “workplace” with “workstation,” but there is a difference:
- Workplace: This refers to a static location (such as the company building or workshop), and being within the company premises counts as part of the workplace.
- Workstation: This is a composite concept that includes both the physical location and the tasks required for the job. For example, a teacher going to the office to get teaching materials or a worker going to the break room to drink water are both considered extensions of the workstation. Similarly, a programmer going to the restroom after clocking in is also part of the workstation (after all, they can’t be expected to code while holding in their urine!).
The law supports this understanding: Any place within the workplace that meets physiological needs or is used for preparatory work related to the job is considered part of the workstation.
4. Comparisons with Similar Cases: What Did the Xi’an Court Decide?
In 2024, there was a similar case in Xi’an where a person died suddenly while using a public restroom outside the construction site after clocking in. The Human Resources and Social Security Bureau recognized it as an industrial injury, but the company appealed. The court upheld the decision, stating that using the restroom is a reasonable extension of the workstation.
In contrast to Shenzhen’s handling of the case, Xi’an’s judgment shows that the Shenzhen bureau’s approach is too rigid. In both cases, the employee died after using the restroom after clocking in, but Xi’an recognized it as an industrial injury, while Shenzhen did not, which contradicts consistent judicial practice.
5. The Original Intent of Industrial Insurance: Employees Should Not Be Forced to “Endure” Before Being Recognized for an Injury
The purpose of the industrial insurance system is to protect employees by providing them with treatment and compensation for work-related injuries or sudden illnesses, thereby distributing the company’s risks. Requiring employees to be at their work stations and actively working before being recognized as on duty essentially forces them to endure physiological needs or even work while ill, which goes against the system’s intent. In Xing Zhi’s case, the Shenzhen Human Resources and Social Security Bureau’s interpretation of the “workstation” as a fixed location is a mechanical application of the law that fails to protect employees’ rights.
Conclusion
The essence of this controversy lies in the clash between more humane approaches to recognizing industrial injuries and rigid legal interpretations. The industrial insurance system should protect employees’ legitimate rights, not exclude those who need protection due to work-related circumstances with overly strict standards. It is hoped that this case will lead to more flexible and practical criteria for recognizing industrial injuries, truly fulfilling the original intent of the system.