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].

新京报讯(记者张静姝通讯员黄冰瑶)用人单位与劳动者无法就调岗协商一致时，劳动者可以拒绝调岗 吗？日前，北京市大兴区人民法院公布一起案例，劳动者与公司签订合同后，公司给劳动者调整岗位且 薪资下降。劳动者不予认可，没去调整后的岗位上班被公司解除劳动合同。法院最终判决公司违法解除 劳动关系，应支付赔偿金。 2023年11月，林某与某运输公司签订劳动合同书，岗位为驾驶员，工作区域或工作地点为北京市D区， 合同到期后，双方续签了劳动合同。2023年12月，某运输公司作出《关于调整工作岗位的决定》，将驾 驶员林某调整至距离较远的场站担任值守员，薪资标准及工作时间按该场站值守员岗位相关标准和规定 执行，相较于之前的岗位薪资有所下降。 林某对调岗的决定不予认可，仍在原岗位每日上下班打卡。后某运输公司向林某送达了《解除劳动关系 告知书》，表示林某从2024年1月1日起，既未在公司规定时限内至新岗位报到上岗，也未作出任何书面 说明，连续旷工已长达5天，严重违反用人单位规章制度，公司决定予以辞退。 林某以某运输公司为被申请人申请仲裁，要求公司支付违法解除劳动关系赔偿金。仲裁裁决作出后，林 某不服提起诉讼。 法院经审理认为，某运输公 ...