Core Viewpoint - The court ruled that the company unlawfully terminated the labor contract with the employee, ordering the company to pay compensation for the wrongful dismissal and unpaid annual leave [1][2][3] Group 1: Case Background - The employee, Zhao, signed a labor contract with the company on October 14, 2010, which was later converted to an indefinite contract with the position of project operations specialist [1] - On March 31, 2023, the company issued a notice to adjust Zhao's position to operations management, which Zhao disagreed with, leading the company to terminate the labor relationship citing non-compliance [1] Group 2: Court's Rationale - The court found the company's argument that the positions were similar to be unreasonable, as the job descriptions and working conditions were significantly different [2] - The court emphasized that the determination of job adjustments should consider the actual work content and hours rather than solely relying on internal classifications [2] Group 3: Financial Implications - The court ordered the company to pay Zhao a total of 164,282.85 yuan, which includes 163,981.25 yuan for wrongful termination and 301.6 yuan for unpaid annual leave [3] - Following an appeal, the second-instance court mediated a settlement where the company agreed to pay a total of 135,000 yuan to Zhao [3]

Group 1 - The core issue revolves around the company's unilateral decision to change the employee's working hours and location without mutual agreement, leading to a legal dispute [1][2] - The company argued that the adjustment of working hours and the requirement for short-term business trips were necessary due to project changes, claiming that they ensured employee rest rights through a one-day-off schedule [1] - The court ruled in favor of the employee, stating that the company violated the labor contract by not consulting the employee before changing the working hours and location, resulting in a compensation payment of 54,000 yuan for wrongful termination [2] Group 2 - The employee contended that the new working hours eliminated regular weekends and holidays, and the company failed to provide a clear timeline for the business trips, effectively changing the work location without agreement [2] - The court emphasized that working hours and location are critical components of a labor contract, and the company's lack of communication and failure to negotiate changes were deemed inappropriate [2]

Core Viewpoint - The article highlights the issue of "invisible dismissal" where employers use tactics to force employees to resign, particularly during peak hiring and contract termination periods. It emphasizes the importance of lawful termination of labor relations to maintain social stability and harmony in the workplace [2]. Group 1: Case Summaries - Case 1: An employee, Cao, was wrongfully dismissed while undergoing knee surgery. The court ruled that the company lacked reasonable grounds for termination and ordered compensation of over 350,000 yuan [3][4][5]. - Case 2: Zhang, a live-streaming operator, was dismissed for tardiness. The court found the company's policy of equating tardiness with absenteeism unreasonable and awarded Zhang 8,000 yuan in compensation [7][8][9]. - Case 3: Zhao, an engineer, claimed wrongful termination after the company revoked his access to attendance systems. The court ruled in favor of Zhao, ordering the company to pay over 230,000 yuan for unlawful dismissal [11][12][13]. - Case 4: Wang's work location was changed due to company relocation. The court determined that the change did not constitute a breach of contract, and the company was not required to pay compensation [14][15][16]. Group 2: Legal Insights - Employers must adhere to the principles of good faith and respect for employees when terminating contracts. The law requires that any dismissal must be justified and proportionate to the employee's actions [6][10]. - The court emphasized that disciplinary actions should be commensurate with the severity of the employee's misconduct, and employers should not impose the harshest penalties without prior warnings [10][17].