Adjustment Of Workplace Women'S Refusal During Lactation Period

The labor contract law stipulates that written labor contracts concluded by employing units and workers shall include essential provisions such as work contents and working places, and stipulates that the labor contract provided by the employer does not contain the legal liability for the essential terms of the labor contract.

Therefore, the employer and the laborer agree on the place of work in the labor contract, which is both a contract and a law.

In this case, the company and Ms. Chen's work place stipulated in the labor contract is the store owned by the company.

From the agreed content, it can be understood that any working place arranged by the company belongs to the working place agreed upon by both parties, and there is no specific specific direction.

Such an agreement essentially relieves the catering company of its responsibility to change the place of work from Shanghai to Guangzhou as an employer, and excludes Ms. Chen's right to negotiate as a laborer for changing the contents of the labor contract, which does not conform to the legislative purpose of the working place in the labor contract, and is evading the law.

It is true that the specific working place is specified by employing units and workers. Employers can also adjust their working place unilaterally according to the needs of production and operation. This is the embodiment of the employer's autonomy in employment.

However, the right can not be abused. The employer should bear the burden of proof for the reasonableness and necessity of adjusting the place of work.

In this case, Ms. Chen is the "three stage" female worker who is still in the lactation period, and is protected by law. The company has pferred it to Guangdong Province, which is obviously lacking in rationality.

It is difficult for the company to include a Guangzhou store in the work place specified in the contract and not to belong to the adjustment work place.

The Supreme People's court's application of labor dispute cases

The thirteenth provision of the interpretation of some questions stipulates that the employer shall bear the burden of proof for the labor dispute arising from the decision of the employer to expel, remove, dismiss, rescind the labor contract, reduce labor remuneration, and calculate the working life of the worker.

In this case, the company thought that Ms. Chen was not obedient to the company's legitimate job pfer and did not work in the Guangzhou store. She was absenteeism and a serious violation of the company's rules and regulations.

As a matter of fact, after receiving the notice from the company, Ms. Chen made it clear that the relocation of the workplace would affect the normal lactation of the baby, and hoped that it would continue to work in Shanghai during the lactation period.

。

And Ms. Chen did not agree that the company would go to the original place after its adjustment.

At work, the catering company thinks that the absenteeism is difficult to accept, and should be deemed to be illegal to relieve the labor contract.

Article forty-eighth of the labor contract law stipulates that if the employer illegally terminates or terminates the labor contract, and if the worker requests to continue to fulfill the labor contract, the employing unit shall continue to perform. If the worker fails to continue to fulfil the labor contract or the labor contract can not continue to perform, the employer shall pay the compensation according to the eighty-seventh clause.

Therefore, Ms. Chen's request for resumption of labor relations with catering companies is based on the law.