The retrial applicant, Sun XX, was dissatisfied with the civil judgment of the Intermediate People's Court of Yantai City, Shandong Province (2021) Lu 06 Min Zhong No. 6563 due to a labor dispute with the respondent XX Auto Parts *** hereinafter referred to as Hyundai Xingyu Company, and applied to this court for a retrial. This court formed a collegial panel to review the case in accordance with the law, and the review has now been concluded.
Sun XX applied for a retrial, claiming that the courts of first and first instance failed to fully ascertain the facts, resulting in a miscarriage of judgment. On May 28, 2020, the recording of the conversation between Qu Yongqiang, the leader of the respondent's unit, and Wang **, the recording of Yan Maoying's conversation on September 2, the recording of Yan Maoying's conversation with Chi Yuan on September 3, and the recording of Wen Shaoxin's conversation with Wang Mingliang on September 3, 2020, are sufficient to confirm that the respondent revoked the packaging department including the applicant, subcontracted it to the outside world, and transferred the applicant and others. The respondent's conduct was clearly a violation of the labor contract by unilaterally changing the content of the labor contract and adjusting the job position of the applicant. The transfer of the respondent objectively exceeded the actual labor skills of the applicant, and in essence, it was a disguised attempt to force the applicant to resign. According to the adjudication rules of the Supreme People's Court, if an employer adjusts an employee's position without authorization and forces him to resign, it shall pay severance for the termination of the labor contract in accordance with Article 38 of the Labor Contract Law. The Respondent also adopted the act of adjusting the working hours of the Applicants, making the Applicants work eight hours a day, changing the original two shifts to three shifts, which significantly reduced the wages of the Applicants and others. The respondent clearly violated the provisions of Paragraph 1 of Article 38 of the Labor Contract Law, and should pay severance for the termination of the contract in accordance with the law. It can be clearly seen from the ** on October 23 and October 26 that the applicant and others also sought the respondent to solve the problem of job transfer and salary reduction, but the respondent was rejected from the factory. 2. The original judgment erred in the application of law. In accordance with the provisions of Article 38, Paragraph 1, Item 1 of the Labor Contract Law of the People's Republic of China, the applicant claimed to terminate the labor contract with the respondent and claim that the respondent should pay economic compensation. The job position agreed between the applicant and the respondent is a packaging position, and now the packaging position has been revoked, and the applicant will be transferred to another workshop, the applicant's basic job position and working conditions are gone, and the respondent's behavior is obviously in violation of the labor contract. The original trial court's failure to uphold the application of law was an error in the application of law and seriously damaged the legitimate rights and interests of the applicant. In accordance with Article 207 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China.
2. The provisions of Article 6 apply for retrial.
After review, this court held that the focus of the retrial review of this case was whether the original judgment had sufficient factual and legal basis for determining that Hyundai Xingyu Company did not pay Sun XX severance for the termination of the labor contract.
Sun XX asserted that Hyundai Xingyu Company had transferred his post without reason, lowered the wage standard, changed the agreement of the labor contract between the two parties, and did not allow him to go to work, and should pay economic compensation for the termination of the labor contract. This court held that Hyundai Xingyu Company, as an employer and market entity, enjoys the autonomy of employment and the right to manage production and operation in accordance with the law, and has the right to make reasonable adjustments to the workers' positions, working hours and working places according to their own production and operation needs. In this case, even if Hyundai Xingyu Company needs to adjust its job position due to the outsourcing of the applicant's department due to production and operation needs, it is still a lawful exercise of employment autonomy. According to the applicant's claim, the salary standard (calculated by the hour) was not reduced after the adjustment of the position, but only the adjustment of his working hours from 12 hours per day to 8 hours, which did not violate the working hours clause and the wage standard clause agreed in the employment contract between the two parties. The applicant's request to terminate the labor contract on the grounds that he did not agree with the employer's adjustment of his position and working hours did not comply with the provisions of Article 38 of the Labor Contract Law of the People's Republic of China, and his claim for severance had no factual and legal basis, and it was not improper for the original trial court not to support it.
In summary, Sun XX's application for retrial did not comply with Article 207 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China.
2. The circumstances provided for in item 6. In accordance with the first paragraph of Article 211 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China and the second paragraph of Article 393 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on the Application of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, it is ruled as follows:
Sun XX's application for retrial was rejected.