宝山区法院审理认为，即使用人单位依约享有调岗权，调整也应具备合理性。本案中，新岗位"流水线 操作工"与原"工程师"岗位在工作内容、性质、模式、时间等方面差异显著，且借调期满后的安排具有 较大不确定性，已超出通常理解的调岗范畴。沈先生因顾虑岗位变动带来的工作内容、考核、待遇等变 化，以及可能面临的频繁调岗风险，拒绝报到具备合理性。其未到新岗而坚持原岗出勤的行为，难以认 定为旷工。公司以此为由解除合同依据不足，构成违法解除。 据此，法院判决公司向沈先生支付违法解除劳动合同赔偿金25万余元。该案经二审维持原判，现已生 效。 法官点评：用人单位调岗虽是用工自主权体现，但须具备必要性、合理性与正当性，且不得损害劳动者 权益。具体而言：调岗应与劳动者技能相匹配，保持职业价值延续；调岗内容应具有确定性，避免使劳 动者陷入职业"悬空"；用人单位应以清晰沟通为基础，避免将调岗异化为转嫁风险的手段；劳动者面对 不合理调整时，也应依法提出异议，注意留存证据。健康劳动关系的构建，有赖于双方在规则框架内进 行有序、互信的互动。 本报讯（记者 郭剑烽 通讯员 陆艺楷）从工程师"借调"去流水线当操作工——这样的岗位调整，员工拒 绝后继续在 ...

转自：扬子晚报 在工位上小憩一会儿，吃个外卖或者短暂离开一下工位，这些在办公场所再平常不过的行为，却让程序 员小陈在两天内连续收到四份警告，并最终被公司以"严重违纪"为由开除。 近期，上海宝山区人民法院审理了这样一起案件： 然而，在外包公司办公地工作三个月后，小陈突然收到了外包公司的书面警告，原因是她"5次工作时间 睡觉超过半小时"。随后一天内，小陈又连续收到了三份口头警告，理由分别是"擅离工作岗位""工作时 间吃外卖"以及"未经批准在工作场地使用个人电脑设备"。 之后，公司把三次口头警告升级为一次书面警告，又以小陈一个月内累计收到两次书面警告属于严重违 纪为由，解除了劳动关系。 小陈于是申请劳动仲裁，要求外包公司支付违法解除劳动合同赔偿金113000余元。在仲裁请求被驳回 后，小陈起诉到法院。 小陈认为她的行为不至于到"严重违纪"的程度："'严重'这个词也不是随随便便可以用的。" 对于"工作时间吃外卖"的指控，小陈的代理律师解释说："当时送外卖的快递员没有及时送达，小陈拿 到外卖后，就直接在工位上进行了就餐。" 针对"擅离工作岗位"的指控，代理律师认为，当时小陈处在被撤项后的培训期间，在没有安排具体任务 的 ...

（来源：工人日报） 【审理过程】 公司辩称，依据双方签订的劳动合同约定，公司可以根据业务和经营需要调整小方的工作岗位。公司提 出，小方多次拒绝公司安排的正常工作，且工作效率低、质量差，多次引发客户负面反馈。上述事实足 以证明，小方违反了劳动合同约定，公司有权将其解雇。 小方则认为，公司从未向他出示或告知过任何内部规章制度，且自己的岗位为软件测试岗，其对于部门 主管提出的要求、客户反映的问题，均能积极沟通、给出解释并提出建议，已属尽职尽责，并不存在无 法胜任工作的情形。 故小方认为，公司未与其协商一致就调整其工作岗位并不合理。在要求其转岗的次日通知其离职，则构 成违法解除劳动合同。 【判决结果】 第一天通知员工转岗，第二天就要求其离职，公司的这一操作是否合法？近日，记者从北京市总工会劳 模法律服务团获悉了该案的判决结果。法院认为，公司在没有对员工进行针对性培训的情况下，在要求 其转岗的次日通知其离职，该行为显然不符合法律规定。最终，法院判决案涉公司支付员工违法解除劳 动合同赔偿金10.8万元、工资差额1.7万余元。 【案情回顾】 2020年11月19日，小方入职某公司从事软件测试工作，双方签订劳动合同。 公司表 ...

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].