When Workers Are Forced To Adjust Posts, They Should Not Be Absent From Work.

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

In December 2015, the unit 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, 2015, the unit informed Ms. Chen that he would report to the sales office before January 5, 2016, otherwise he would deal with absenteeism.

Ms. Chen still said she did not agree to tune posts and did not work in the new posts for 7 consecutive days.

In January 2016, the unit made a decision on the basis of Ms. Chen's absenteeism for 7 days.

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

Ms. Chen said that the labor contract stipulated that she was engaged in the marketing department.

Now that the employer wants to pfer her to the sales post, she does not agree with the post adjustment decision before she goes to work.

Biotech companies argue that units can adjust their jobs according to their business needs. Ms. Chen does not comply with the decision to pfer posts and is absent from new jobs.

Ms. Chen does not agree with the unit's post adjustment decision. Can it be identified as absenteeism without reporting to new jobs?

Comment and analysis:

"Article thirty-fifth stipulates that employers and workers can change the content stipulated in the labor contract by consensus.

The work position is the necessary clause of the labor contract. If the worker's job is adjusted, the employer and the worker should be negotiated and agreed.

In this case, biotech company adjusts Ms Chen's position from the inside office to the sales post, which is a change of job position and has exceeded the scope of independent management.

Miss Chen did not arrive at a consensus.

The act of reporting can not be regarded as absenteeism. The act of dismiss Ms. Chen has no legal and factual basis. According to the eighty-seventh provision of the labor contract law, the company shall pay the economic compensation.

In practice, employers often adjust their posts, work contents, salaries and work places according to the objective needs of production and operation, which requires enterprises to correctly grasp the boundaries of employment autonomy.

The change of labor contract should follow the principle of consensus, and should comply with the statutory conditions and procedures.