Chongqing university students working part-time delivering food face disciplinary action; lawyer states that students' labor rights should not be restricted by blanket clauses

Recently, Lin, a student from Chongqing Industrial Information Vocational College (surname withheld), said that because she works part-time delivering student meals within campus, she received a disciplinary notice from the school. However, the disciplinary process was later halted by the school. Zhao Liangshan, a senior partner at Shaanxi Hengda Law Firm, analyzed that students have legitimate rights to participate in social practice and work-study programs, and the school may not arbitrarily restrict students’ right to work by relying on a blanket “catch-all” clause. The initiation, suspension, and even termination of the school’s disciplinary procedure all lack clear written legal basis and written explanations.

According to a report by Modern Express, Lin, a first-year student at Chongqing Industrial Information Vocational College, said she started delivering meals part-time on campus from January this year. When the school first discovered her, she was required to write a guarantee letter. Recently, after she was found again, she received a notice of disciplinary action. At present, the school has more than 10 students with similar situations who deliver meals within or for the campus as a way to supplement their living expenses, including several students from impoverished backgrounds.

The “Notice of Proposed Handling of Disciplinary Action” received by Lin shows that, because her conduct of delivering student meals on campus violates the regulations on student disciplinary actions, the school intends to impose a warning on her. When Lin checked the cited sections of the school rules, she found that the content said, “Violating other students’ dormitory management regulations, causing an adverse impact; depending on the seriousness of the case, a warning or higher-level disciplinary action will be imposed.” This school rule does not explicitly list delivery of meals and similar acts as prohibited content.

On March 26, a staff member from the school involved responded that they had communicated with the student in question and had already halted the disciplinary process, and that no actual punishment was imposed; the matter has been properly resolved.

On March 27, a reporter from Xinhuanghe contacted the Student Affairs Office of the Chongqing Municipal Education Commission regarding this matter. The staff member said the response would be made by the Propaganda and Education Office. A staff member from the Propaganda and Education Office stated that they were not yet aware of this matter, and after verification they would respond. As of the time of publication, no response had been received.

Zhao Liangshan, a senior partner at Shaanxi Hengda Law Firm, analyzed that from a legal perspective, the disciplinary decision the school intends to make clearly has substantive defects and lacks legitimacy. Under the rule-of-law principle of “no punishment without explicit law” and the spirit of the Ministry of Education’s “Administrative Provisions on Students of General Institutions of Higher Education” (Order No. 41), students enjoy legitimate rights to participate in social practice and work-study. The school may not arbitrarily restrict students’ right to work by using blanket “catch-all” clauses. The school rules involved do not explicitly list “meal delivery within campus” as a prohibited act. The school directly applies the “dormitory management regulations” to punish the student, which constitutes an error in applying the basis, and objectively, the student’s part-time work is a lawful form of labor to subsidize her living, without causing substantial harm.

Zhao Liangshan said that after that, although the school later “suspended” the disciplinary process—thus protecting students’ rights in terms of the outcome—there are still doubts about the legality of the procedure. This highlights arbitrariness in management. The initiation, suspension, and even termination of the school’s disciplinary process all lack clear written legal basis and written explanations, failing to demonstrate respect for statutory procedures. Such “stop-and-start” operations that constantly change course violate the stability and predictability that management actions should have. Even if the substantive outcome is correct, the arbitrariness of the procedure weakens the credibility of running the university in accordance with the law. In essence, it is still a governance irregularity rather than a lawful act of management.

（Xinhuanghe）