The company demanded the employee to take on double the workload under the banner of resource integration. After the employee refused to assume dual roles, the company terminated the employment contract for serious misconduct. Was the dismissal lawful?

[Case Review]

Wu was a senior administrative supervisor at a commercial management company, primarily responsible for administrative tasks related to the operation and management of Mall A. One day, the company informed Wu that the team for Mall B would be integrated with that of Mall A, and that Wu would also be responsible for the administrative work of Mall B thereafter. Wu refused, stating that the additional work responsibilities exceeded the scope outlined in the employment contract and that he would not accept the company's unilateral arrangement to impose an unreasonable increase in workload. Subsequently, Wu did not work at Mall B. The company terminated Wu's employment contract, claiming that Wu had refused to perform job duties, constituting a serious disciplinary violation. Following this, Wu applied for labor arbitration, requesting that the company pay compensation for wrongful termination of the employment contract. After failing to receive support at arbitration, Wu filed a lawsuit in court.

Wu argued that the company's request was unreasonable. Mall A and Mall B were located at separate sites, and the number of people served increased from 40 to 120, significantly increasing his workload and exceeding the scope outlined in the employment contract. This constituted an unreasonable modification of the contract terms.

The company contended that it had the right to make autonomous employment decisions and that the adjustment to Wu's work responsibilities and scope did not significantly increase his workload, nor did it involve a modification of the employment contract.

After reviewing the case, the People's Court held that employers shall exercise caution and reasonableness when terminating employment contracts. In this case, Wu was originally responsible only for administrative tasks at Mall A, but the company now required Wu to also handle administrative tasks at Mall B. Consequently, Wu had to work at two locations, manage administrative tasks for two positions, and oversee a significantly larger number of employees, resulting in a substantial increase in workload from the original level. The company's adjustment to Wu's work responsibilities exceeded the expectations Wu had regarding work content and salary when the employment contract was initially signed, amounting to a modification of the contract terms. Without reaching a consensus with Wu, Wu had the right to refuse.

In conclusion, the People's Court ruled that the company's termination constituted wrongful dismissal and ordered the company to pay Wu over CNY 280,000 in compensation for wrongful termination of the employment contract. The company subsequently appealed, but the appellate court upheld the original judgment.

[Judge's Remarks]

I. Employers have the right to make autonomous employment decisions, but must do so in accordance with the law, in good faith, and reasonably

Employers have the right to make autonomous employment decisions and may, without compromising the legitimate rights and interests of employees and based on operational and management needs, modify or adjust employees' job positions or work responsibilities. Employees shall comply with the employer's management and arrangements and adhere to labor discipline and professional ethics. However, such modifications or adjustments shall be necessary and reasonable and must not violate the principle of good faith by making unreasonable changes to an employee's job position.

In this case, the employer, citing project integration, required the employee to take on administrative responsibilities for another mall in addition to their original duties. Although this may appear not to change the employee's work responsibilities, it essentially added another job position for the employee without increasing their labor remuneration, thereby significantly increasing their workload. This represents an unreasonable exercise of the employer's right to make autonomous employment decisions.

II. Requiring employees to take on multiple roles and increasing their workload constitutes a modification of the employment contract

Employers and employees enter into a written employment contract based on the principles of legality, fairness, equality, voluntariness, consensus, and good faith, stipulating the employees¡¯ job position, responsibilities, labor remuneration, and other terms to define the rights and obligations of both parties. If, subsequently, the employer requires the employee to take on multiple positions in a way that significantly increasing their workload, and this exceeds the employee's expectations regarding job position, workload, and salary when the employment contract was initially signed, it essentially constitutes a modification of the original contract terms. Without reaching a consensus with the employee, the employee has the right to refuse.

III. Employers and employees shall work together to foster a harmonious labor relationship

When an employer, due to operational needs, expects an employee to take on additional responsibilities beyond their original job duties, they shall exercise their right to manage employment reasonably and respect the employee's willingness and rights. If the workload significantly increases, it is advisable for the employer to proactively communicate and negotiate with the employee, considering the intensity and duration of the new tasks as well as the employee's original salary level, and make reasonable adjustments to compensation to ensure fair pay for increased work. For employees, when faced with a similar situation, it is recommended to first rationally assess their abilities to determine whether they can take on additional responsibilities. If they believe that the workload has increased excessively, the responsibilities are too heavy, or the remuneration have become disproportionate, they shall proactively communicate with the employer in a friendly manner while safeguarding their rights in accordance with the law. Whether it is the enterprise or the employee, mutual understanding and sincere negotiation are the enduring paths to overcoming difficulties and achieving mutual benefit.

[Representative Comments]

Zhou Jianlong, Deputy to the Shanghai Municipal People's Congress and Chief Engineer of East China Architectural Design & Research Institute Co., Ltd.

Against the backdrop of high-quality development, enterprises must not pursue efficiency at the expense of workers¡¯ rights. In response to market shifts, enterprises can certainly adjust their structures and optimize their workforce, but all such actions must be carried out within the boundaries of the law. Practices that disregard employees¡¯ lawful rights¡ªsuch as ¡°fewer staff, more tasks¡±¡ªare not only unsustainable but also expose businesses to both legal and reputational risks. The judgment in this case clearly delineates the boundary between an employer's right to make autonomous employment decisions and the legitimate rights and interests of employees, serving as a warning against improper exercise of such rights by enterprises. It also provides crucial guidance for fostering a healthy and stable labor relationship, holding significant judicial demonstration value.

[Legal Provision Reference]

Labor Contract Law of the People's Republic of China

Article 35 Employers and employees may, upon consensus, modify the content stipulated in the employment contract. Any modification to the employment contract shall be made in writing.

...

Article 47 Economic compensation shall be paid to an employee in accordance with the number of years he or she has worked for the employer, at the rate of one month's wage for each full year of work. For periods of six months or more but less than one year, it shall be counted as one year; for periods less than six months, the employee shall be entitled to economic compensation equivalent to half a month's wage.

If an employee's monthly wage exceeds three times the average monthly wage of employees in the municipality directly under the Central Government or the municipality divided into districts where the employer is located, as published by the local people's government for the previous year, the rate of economic compensation payable to him or her shall be three times the average monthly wage of employees, and the maximum number of years for which economic compensation is payable shall not exceed twelve.

The term "monthly wage" as mentioned in this Article refers to the employee's average monthly wage for the twelve months preceding the termination or dissolution of the employment contract.

Article 87 If an employer violates the provisions of this Law by terminating or dissolving an employment contract, it shall pay compensation to the employee at twice the rate specified in Article 47 of this Law.