The Unauthorized Pfer Of Staff Is Not Enough.

Job and work place are closely related to the living environment, quality and employment of workers.

Does the employer have the right to alter the work place and the work place of the employee without authorization? Does the employee have the right to refuse? Recently, the people's Court of Liancheng County, Fujian Province, supported the laborers' refusal right in the form of judgment.

In September 28, 2011, Huang worked for a wine company in Longyan and served as a salesman of Liancheng County branch. The two sides had not signed a written labor contract.

From September 28, 2011 to October 2012, the plaintiff did not deal with the defendant and pay all social insurance. The plaintiff handled the pension and unemployment insurance from November 2012.

In November 19, 2014, the plaintiff liquor company issued a letter to the defendant, Huang, without consultation with the defendant.

The notice asked the defendant to report to a branch of the plaintiff company in November 20, 2014 and serve as a tally clerk in the branch. The defendant refused to pfer his job on the grounds that the branch was far away from home and was inconvenient to work. After that, the defendant did not go to the Liancheng County branch of the plaintiff, nor did he report to the Longyan branch on the request of the notice, nor did he apply for the job. "The circular" was not handled by the defendant in Longyan.

。

In November 25, 2014, the plaintiff released the unemployment insurance relationship between the unemployment insurance agency in Xinluo District of Longyan and the defendant.

In January 15, 2015, the defendant went to another liquor company in Liancheng County to work.

The labor dispute arbitration committee of Liancheng County made an arbitration on this matter and decided that the plaintiff Longyan liquor company paid 22610 yuan for the worker's compensation, and made up and paid the related insurance and fees.

The plaintiff disagrees with the arbitration, and considers that the defendant has unilaterally disarmed the company without going through the relevant procedures and being employed in other units.

To this end, I appeal to the court.

The court held that although the two sides had not signed a written labor contract, a factual labor relationship was formed between the original defendant and the defendant.

The defendant's long-term working place and work place should be regarded as the agreement of the labor contract between the two parties. The plaintiff's work place and work post provided to the defendant according to the agreement are not agreed by both parties, and the plaintiff shall not alter it without authorization.

The plaintiff issued a notice of pfer to the defendant without consultation with the defendant. He changed the position and job of the defendant without authorization, and violated the relevant provisions of the labor contract law. Therefore, the plaintiff's claim has no factual and legal basis, and the court does not support it.