Basic Case
In September 2018, Zhang Chao (not his real name) joined a newspaper company to work as a postman, working 6 hours a day and 6 days a week, with a monthly salary of 3500 yuan. In June 2020, due to the resignation of another postman in the same region, the newspaper company arranged Zhang Chao to undertake the task of the postman in the third quarter without consultation with him. Zhang Chao believes that to complete the double workload, his daily working hours need to be extended by at least 4 hours, so he refuses the above arrangement. The newspaper company rescinded the labor contract with Zhang Chao on the grounds that he did not obey the work arrangement according to the employee reward and punishment system.
Zhang Chao applied to the labor and personnel dispute arbitration committee for arbitration and requested the newspaper company to pay 14000 yuan of compensation for illegal termination of labor contract. The Arbitration Commission awarded the newspaper company 14000 yuan as compensation for Zhang Chao's illegal termination of the labor contract (the award is final).
Case Study
The focus of the dispute in this case is whether Zhang Chao has the right to refuse if the newspaper company has not agreed with Zhang Chao to increase its work tasks.
Article 31 of the Labor Contract Law of the People's Republic of China stipulates: "The employing unit shall strictly implement the labor quota standards and shall not force or in disguised form force workers to work overtime." Article 35 stipulates: "The contents of the labor contract may be changed if the employing unit and workers reach consensus through consultation." The labor contract is a written agreement that defines the rights and obligations of the employer and the employee. Without any change, both parties shall strictly comply with the agreement, especially the labor quota standards such as working hours.
In this case, the newspaper company significantly increased Zhang Chao's work tasks beyond the reasonable limit, which should be considered as a change to the content of the labor contract, violating the legal provisions on "consensus" changes to the labor contract, and has constituted a disguised form of forced workers to work overtime. Therefore, Zhang Chao has the right to refuse the above arrangement according to law. The newspaper company's dismissal of the labor contract on the ground that Zhang Chao did not obey the work arrangement did not comply with the law. Therefore, the Arbitration Commission ruled according to law that the newspaper company should pay Zhang Chao compensation for illegal termination of the labor contract.
Typical significance
Allowing employers and workers to change the labor contract by consensus is conducive to ensuring the right of employers to reasonably adjust employment arrangements according to the needs of production and operation. However, it should be noted that the change of labor contract should follow the principles of legality, fairness, equality, voluntariness, consensus, honesty and credibility.
Changes in workload and working hours directly affect the realization of workers' right to rest. Employers should make substantial adjustments to this. They should fully negotiate with workers, not force or force in disguised form, nor violate relevant laws and regulations.
