Not long ago, we shared "Mary Kay transferred employees without authorization, paying 770,000 yuan", Mary Kay adjusted the positions of employees on the grounds of "structural adjustment", and also dismissed employees on the grounds of "disobedience to work arrangements", and the result was that employees received compensation of 770,000 yuan.
In the Mary Kay case, the court emphasized that the company has the right to transfer employees, but it should be reasonable and agree with employees.
Today's Philips case, there are two points to see:
First, the employee's indictment is a template, with strong logic and clear organization. Worth recommending to both businesses and employees.
Second, the court also held that if an enterprise wants to adjust the position of an employee on the grounds of "a major change in the objective situation", unless the company is "subjected to force majeure", such as the merger, bankruptcy, or closure of the enterprise.
However, in the case of "Mercedes-Benz gave employees a salary cut due to the epidemic and was sentenced to make up the difference of 160,000", it can still be seen that although Mercedes-Benz encountered the epidemic (force majeure), as long as the company does not close the entire department because of operational difficulties, and only removes an employee position alone, the company has a high probability of bearing the risk of losing the lawsuit.
These three companies are considered to be first-class foreign companies, but they are still "overturning" in dealing with "employee relations", which is worth learning from domestic factories.
1. Brief description of the case
Defendant: Philips (China) Investment Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Philips)
Plaintiff: Tang Mou, born in 1979, the job is a data analyst, joined Philips in 2013, first signed two 3-year fixed contracts, signed no fixed period contracts in 2019, the basic salary is 38057 yuan, and the transportation is 550 yuan and the allowance is 2986 yuan
2. Request from the company
(1) The company has informed employees of the cancellation of the post due to strategic adjustment.
(2) Employees did not pass the internal transfer interview due to skills mismatch.
(3) Expulsion is unavoidable, and part of the compensation has been paid.
(4) The two parties have no basis of trust and cannot restore the labor relationship.
3. Employee complaint
Looking at the claims first, they are very organized and set the conditions (if... else), think clearly of the possible path of the court's ruling. Employees who come from data analysis are indeed different.
Look at the facts and reasons: there are five reasons, this part should have the guidance of lawyers, both legal exposition, legislative logic elaboration, and proper administrative essay.
First, the company lacks evidence and the dismissal is illegal.
Second, the transfer of posts is not a "major change in the objective situation".
Third, the laborer shall not be reduced to an instrumental man.
Fourth, the company's negotiation attitude is "not good faith".
Fifth, the original post was only dismantled.
4. Arbitration Opinions
The arbitration held that "the company failed to fully prove the objectivity of the labor contract that it could not perform", which means that the company's reasons for dismissing the employee were insufficient, and the two parties were not satisfied and sued the court.
5. Opinion of the Court
There are two main opinions:
First, agree to the employee's appeal, and the reason for dismissing the employee is insufficient.
Second, the termination of labor relations is illegal.
Final penalty: Philips pays 520,000 in damages.
Case Information: (2022) Shanghai 0106 Min Chu No. 4526 Shanghai Jing'an District People's Court
Related cases
Mary Kay China transferred employees without authorization, losing 770,000 yuan!
IBM China used 50 pieces of evidence to identify employees for violating discipline and paid 600,000 yuan in compensation
Mercedes-Benz was sentenced to make up the difference of 160,000 due to the salary reduction of employees due to the epidemic
Why did the court invalidate the non-compete agreement of iQIYI employees?
Is the offer valid for the offer and then the withdrawal notice issued?
What should the "anti-sexual harassment" system of enterprises include? Samples are attached
Baidu did not issue a resignation certificate and was recovered by employees for 850,000
Pinduoduo employees who took computers home to work were fired, and the company was awarded 170,000 yuan in damages