A former bureau chief, whose promised annual salary of 800,000 yuan was allegedly not fully paid, has been fired, had his office lock changed, and is facing difficulties with the handover process. Zhou Yuan questioned the procedure: "We immediately sent a formal letter requesting the factual basis, procedures, and opinions regarding these three allegations. To date, there has been no reply." He argued, "If you claim I violated discipline, you must present evidence and follow due process; you cannot fire someone first and then present the 'charges' afterward—that's putting the cart before the horse." Zhou Yuan stated that he and two other former bureau chiefs had repeatedly submitted written reports and communicated with relevant departments but had received no updates on the matter.

Zhou Yuan detailed the specific changes to his salary since assuming the position. In August 2020, after officially taking up the post following organizational procedures and public announcement, he was informed by a superior that the promised 800,000 yuan annual salary would be split into two parts: a 200,000 yuan base salary and a 600,000 yuan performance-based salary. "From August 2020 until the end of 2021, this annual salary was paid out normally," he said. "After that, the performance-based portion stopped completely." In early 2022, the three individuals were notified of an adjustment to their salary structure: a 480,000 yuan base salary and a 320,000 yuan performance salary, keeping the total annual package unchanged. "However, in reality, only 32,000 yuan was paid monthly for five months, which was then reduced to just over 16,000 yuan, with all performance pay halted, resulting in a shortfall of over 500,000 yuan from the promise." Zhou Yuan revealed that this adjustment was communicated only verbally, with no official documentation.

Zhou Yuan reported that on March 20, 2024, he and the two other former bureau chiefs were verbally informed by relevant leadership that they were to be dismissed due to "failing their annual performance assessments for two consecutive years." He stated that prior to 2021, he was able to receive his performance pay based on assessment results, but in 2022, the unit provided no written assessment results whatsoever. He质疑ed the legitimacy of the dismissal process, stating, "We were hired through open social recruitment and formally appointed after passing selection assessments according to regulations. Dismissing us should also follow relevant organizational procedures; it cannot be decided by a single individual. We also requested a formal written notice, but to no avail. Then, a year and a half later, we suddenly received a 'Notice of Termination of Labor Contract' citing reasons such as 'failure to perform investment promotion duties as required, serious violation of rules and regulations, and serious violation of labor discipline.'"

During a court hearing on February 2, the Human Resources Center of the concerned zone pointed out that the three individuals had absenteeism records ranging from 7 to 17 working days during their tenure. They also allegedly failed to perform their investment promotion duties and seriously violated rules and regulations and labor discipline, leading to the lawful termination of their contracts. The three individuals, however, denied any such violations or disciplinary infractions. "The nature of our work inherently involves frequent external assignments; using access control records instead of proper attendance records to prove absenteeism is itself unreasonable," Zhou Yuan argued. "Furthermore, there was never any prior agreement requiring daily clock-in attendance," and "the so-called rules and regulations are not applicable to our rank."

Zhou Yuan mentioned that according to the recruitment documents at the time, the three were hired as Bureau Chiefs for the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei, Yangtze River Delta, and Pearl River Delta regional investment promotion offices, respectively. Their duty stations were supposed to be the zone's representative offices in Beijing, Shanghai, and Shenzhen. "But in fact, since taking up the post, I have been working in Kunming the entire time, while my home is in Beijing," he told the reporter. He was on annual leave and had just returned to his home in Beijing when he received the dismissal notice. After his leave ended, he returned to his office in Kunming to communicate face-to-face with relevant leaders. "On the afternoon of November 27 last year, I found I couldn't open my office door—the lock seemed to have been changed. I couldn't get in, and I couldn't proceed with a normal work handover." Regarding the sequence of events, the reporter also verified the details with the other two individuals involved, who confirmed that the above events were accurate.