Fired for Fake Fingerprint Check-ins: Two Employees Lose Lawsuit Against Former Employer

On September 8, IT Home reported, citing Litchi News, that the Taicang People’s Court has rejected a labor lawsuit involving two employees accused of using fake fingerprints for "buddy punching" on the company’s attendance system.

In this case, Zhang and Li, colleagues with a close relationship, worked for the same company. Recently, Zhang was unable to report to work on time due to personal matters and asked Li to use a forged rubber fingerprint to clock in on his behalf.

Li proceeded to punch in for Zhang three times before the company discovered the misconduct. Surveillance footage revealed that Zhang entered the office well after the official start time, while the attendance log showed a normal on-time record. Upon inquiry, both Zhang and Li admitted to the scheme.

Following an internal review, the company invoked a provision in its employee handbook stating: “Any employee who clocks in on behalf of another, or has another clock in for them, will be deemed to have committed a serious violation. Three such violations within 12 months will result in immediate termination of employment.” Based on this rule, the company terminated both Zhang and Li’s contracts.

Unwilling to accept the decision, the two filed a lawsuit demanding compensation for what they claimed was unlawful termination. However, after reviewing the case, the court determined that their actions clearly violated the employee handbook — a document formulated through democratic procedures and publicly disclosed. As the company had also notified the labor union, the court found no illegality in the termination.

The court emphasized that attendance management is a critical component of an employer’s right to autonomous operation. The "buddy punching" act not only undermined the company’s management rights but also breached the principle of honesty and trustworthiness expected from employees. Therefore, the court ruled that the company’s decision to terminate the contracts was lawful, and the lawsuit was dismissed.