The Problem Of Absenteeism After Being Pferred To Post

In December 5, 2013, Ms. Chen entered a biotechnology company and served as a marketing insider.

In December 2015, the company said the company needed internal adjustment because of poor management and decided to adjust Ms. Chen to the Sales Department of the marketing department.

Ms. Chen indicated that the contents of the two posts were too large to agree with the posts.

In December 30, 2014, the company informed Ms. Chen that he would report to the sales office before January 5, 2015, otherwise he would deal with absenteeism.

Ms. Chen still disagrees.

And did not arrive 7 days in a row.

Go to work.

In January 2015, the company made a decision on Ms. Chen's understanding of employment on the basis of Ms. Chen's absenteeism for 7 days.

Ms. Chen refused to accept the decision and applied for labor dispute arbitration, which required the company to pay 6000 yuan of compensation for breaking the labor contract illegally.

The Arbitration Commission heard that

The thirty-fifth article states: "employers and workers can change the content stipulated in the labor contract by consensus."

The adjustment of workers' jobs requires consensus between employers and workers.

The biotechnology company adjusted Ms. Chen from the office position to the sales post, which is a change in the job position. When the negotiation did not reach a consensus, Ms. Chen could not be identified as absenteeism when she did not report to the sales office. The company dismissed Ms. Chen's behavior without legal and factual basis. According to the eighty-seventh provision of the labor contract law, the company should pay compensation.

Related links:

The dispute between the employee and the unit is due to the industrial injury insurance benefits. After the final decision was made by the Arbitration Commission, the unit applied to the central hospital for revocation. After the court ruled that it had been revoked, Liu refused to accept the case and prosecuted the people's court at the grassroots level.

At this time, it has been six months since the final ruling. Is Liu's claim exceeding the prescription?

Liu Mou is a worker of a construction company, with a monthly salary of 10 thousand yuan.

In April 17, 2011, when Liu worked, the fracture of the left tibia and fibula was caused.

After Liu was identified as work-related injuries, in December 2012 was identified as 9 grade disability.

In August 8, 2013, Liu submitted an arbitration application to the county labor and personnel dispute arbitration committee, demanding the termination of the labor contract with the engineering company and requiring the engineering company to pay the industrial injury insurance benefits.

In October 11, 2013, the Arbitration Commission's final ruling supported Liu's appeal request.

The engineering company refused to accept the final ruling. At the end of October, it applied to the Municipal Intermediate People's court to revoke the ruling. The court made a ruling in April 8, 2014 to support the application of the engineering company.

In April 17th, Liu received the ruling, and in April 29th, Liu complained to the county court.

In the trial, the engineering company argued that in October 11, 2013, the Arbitration Commission made a final ruling. In April 29, 2014, Liu Moucai sued the court, exceeding the prescription.

The court held that Liu was injured in his work and should be entitled to industrial injury insurance in accordance with the law.

The engineering company has already paid work-related injury insurance premiums for Liu. Liu should enjoy a one-time disability allowance and work-related injury subsidy, which should be paid by the social insurance fund.

Liu's request for termination of labor relations with the engineering company is justified.

The engineering company should pay the monthly average salary of the workers in 2012 as the base to pay 12 months' one-time disability employment subsidy.

The forty-ninth clause and second paragraph of the labor dispute mediation and Arbitration Law stipulates that if the arbitral award is revoked by the people's court, the parties may bring a lawsuit to the people's court within 15 days from the date of receiving the ruling.

Liu received the ruling of the court in April 17, 2014 and filed a lawsuit in April 29th, which did not exceed the limitation of action.

Accordingly, the court decided that the labor relationship between Liu and the engineering company should be terminated.

The engineering company appealed to the central court against the verdict.

Recently, the court rejected the appeal and upheld the original judgment.