Core Viewpoint - The court ruled in favor of the employee, stating that the company's unilateral decision to relocate him to a different province without proper communication and agreement constituted an illegal termination of the employment contract [1][2][3]. Group 1: Case Background - An employee, Shen, was dismissed by a certain automobile company after refusing a job transfer from Changchun to Guiyang due to family obligations [1]. - The company claimed that the employee's refusal to comply with the transfer constituted a serious violation of company regulations, justifying the termination of his contract [1][2]. Group 2: Court's Findings - The court determined that changes to work location and position are essential elements of an employment contract and require mutual agreement between the employer and employee [2]. - The court noted that the company did not adequately communicate or negotiate the transfer with Shen before making the decision, which violated his rights [2]. - The court found that the transfer to Guiyang was not reasonable, as there was no established relationship between the two locations, and the employee had consistently worked in Changchun [2][3]. Group 3: Financial Implications - The court ordered the company to pay Shen a total of 123,000 yuan (approximately 12.3 million yuan) for wage differences and compensation for the illegal termination of the employment relationship [3].

Core Viewpoint - The court ruled that the company unlawfully terminated the employment relationship with the employee, ordering the company to pay 120,000 yuan in compensation due to the employee's excessive workload and refusal to take on additional responsibilities [1][3][4]. Group 1: Case Background - The employee, Ms. Gao, had been working at the company for over two years and was responsible for order entry for offline retail and some major clients [1]. - Following personnel adjustments, Ms. Gao's workload increased significantly, with the number of sales personnel she needed to coordinate rising from 18 to 52 [1]. - After another colleague's departure, the company requested Ms. Gao to take over the e-commerce order responsibilities, which she felt was unmanageable given her current workload [1][2]. Group 2: Legal Proceedings - The company claimed that Ms. Gao's refusal to take on the additional work constituted a serious violation of company policy, leading to her dismissal without compensation [2]. - The court found that Ms. Gao was already handling a full workload and her refusal to take on more work was justified, thus not qualifying as a "refusal of normal work handover" [2][3]. - The court emphasized that unilateral termination of the employment contract is a severe measure and should only be applied when the employee's actions are significantly serious [3][4]. Group 3: Court's Ruling - The court determined that the company's actions lacked legality and reasonableness, as Ms. Gao had already taken on additional responsibilities prior to her dismissal [3]. - The ruling reinforced that employees have the right to refuse additional work based on genuine workload concerns, and companies cannot simply terminate employment based on such refusals [4].

Core Viewpoint - The court ruled that the company unlawfully terminated the employment relationship with the worker, who was entitled to compensation for the wrongful dismissal [1][2][3] Group 1: Case Background - In November 2023, a worker named Lin signed a labor contract with a transportation company as a driver, with the work area specified as D District in Beijing [1] - In December 2023, the company decided to reassign Lin to a distant location as a guard, resulting in a decrease in salary compared to his previous position [1] - Lin refused the reassignment and continued to clock in at his original position, leading the company to issue a notice of termination citing Lin's absence from the new position as grounds for dismissal [1] Group 2: Court's Ruling - The court found that the company's reassignment of Lin from driver to guard involved significant changes in both job location and salary, which Lin explicitly disagreed with [2] - The company failed to notify the labor union about the termination and did not provide sufficient evidence to justify the legality of the dismissal [2] - Consequently, the court determined that the company was liable for wrongful termination and must compensate Lin for the unlawful dismissal [3]