The company moved from Haidian to Daxing office. The 27 -year -old employee was too far away and asked to compensate more than 160,000.

Because of business needs, the new address of the company's relocation is normal, and some employees do not buy it in practice. If the employee proposes to leave and claims a certain compensation from the unit, does the court support it? Let's take a look at the latest cases of the People's Court of Daxing District, Beijing. How did the court judge? What is the reason?

The company moves, and the employees are too far away

On July 14, according to a civil judgment, Wang joined a company in Beijing on April 18, 1994. The two parties signed a non -fixed term labor contract. The post was the final inspector, with a monthly salary of 6100 yuan, and lived in Changping District.

On September 20, 2017, a village committee in Haidian District, Beijing issued an announcement of retirement and demolition, requiring enterprises within their jurisdiction to retreat and demolition.

On March 1, 2018, the company decided to move to another company to continue its operation, and informed that all employees such as Wang Mou had to move into the new office address as a whole after the new store was completed.

On May 19, 2021, the company issued a notice of relocation to inform the employees that they had successfully completed the relocation of the new office address, and the address was Daxing District, Beijing.

At the same time, all employees were required to work in the new office on June 1 that year, and Wang signed on the relocation notice. It is worth mentioning that the company also considers the actual situation of some employees. For employees who have not rented a house in Daxing District and employees in Beijing, and the shortest range of Beijing -based employees, they will give no more than 400 yuan per month per month. Rental subsidy. However, Wang regretted and said that he did not agree with relocation.

Photo source: Photo Network -501528943

During the trial, the reason for Wang was: The company's office address was written in the labor contract, and he lived in Changping District. The company moved to the new office address of Daxing District 80 kilometers away from home because the company's new address was too far away from home.

However, the company said that Wang filled out the company's willingness to relocate the investigation form and agreed to the company's relocation.

On May 28, 2021, Wang submitted a resignation report to the company. The report shows that because the company's business demand has expanded, it has moved to the Daxing area, because the family is too far away from the company to leave. The next day, the company issued a certificate of resignation to Wang that the labor contract between the two parties was canceled on May 31, 2021.

On July 6, 2021, Wang submitted an arbitration application to the Arbitration Commission of the Daxing District of Beijing, asking the company to pay a compensation of RMB 164,700 for the release of labor relations. After trial, the Daxing Arbitration Commission ruling rejected Wang's arbitration request.

However, Wang did not give up, so he had to sue the company to the court.

Court: Lack of basis, judge rejection

Wang filed a lawsuit with the People's Court of Daxing District, Beijing, asking the company to pay the compensation of RMB 164,700 for the release of labor relations. Reason: Wang said that he had worked in the company for 27 years. Because the company moved, he moved from Haidian to Daxing District, but he lived in Changping District, and Daxing District was too far away from home.

After inquiring by the court, Wang also said that the company did not say that the dormitory did not say subsidies for rent, because he was not suitable for living in a collective dormitory with others when he was old. However, the company said that there was no actual dormitory, only 400 yuan per month, and employees who were unwilling to go to work in the new address took the initiative to resign, and could not arrange to adjust their posts.

The court believes that the focus of this case is whether Wang advocates whether there is facts and legal basis for the release of labor relations.

First of all, Wang established a non -fixed -term labor relationship in the company. The work place agreed in the labor contract was all in Haidian District. The company's original operating address was demolished because the company was required within the scope of land planning in Beijing. Before the office of Daxing District, I rented a house near the original operating address and gave a three -year transition period. The adjustment of the work location is not caused by the company's subjective reasons. Therefore, the company's change of work is reasonable; secondly, the company investigated the wishes of the employee when relocating to the new address. Although the company does not recognize Wang's willingness to submit the intention to the site, the investigation form shows that Wang does not agree to go to the new address to go to the new address. At work, when the company's survey requires relevant subsidies or other suggestions, Wang did not make relevant opinions to the company. The company provides a housing subsidy of 400 yuan per month for employees far away from home. Therefore, the court believes that the company's changes in the new address have taken reasonable make up for employees.

Therefore, Wang Mou moved to the Daxing area because of the expansion of the company's business needs, because the family was too far away from the company to make a resignation. "The company requested the company to pay a lawsuit of the compensation for the economic compensation of the labor relationship. In the end, the court ruled: rejected Wang's claim.

Daily Economic News

- END -