员工拒绝“干3人活儿”被开除，法院判了！

近日，北京三中院通报一起劳动纠纷案。因两名同事先后离职，高女士陆续被要求接手其工作。她因拒绝再接手第二名离职同事的工作，被公司以“拒绝正常工作交接、工作安排”为由辞退。法院最终认定用人单位属于违法解除劳动关系，判决用人单位向高女士赔偿12万元。

A Beijing court has ruled that a company unlawfully dismissed an employee who refused to take on extra duties after two colleagues resigned. The company was ordered to pay 120,000 yuan in compensation.

高女士在某公司工作已两年有余，是华北地区的订单员，主要负责线下零售和部分大客户的订单录入。由于公司人事调整，负责另一项业务的某同事的工作被分配给了高女士。这意味着，她需要对接的销售人员数量从原来的18人激增到了52人，工作量明显增加。

没过多久，负责电商平台订单录入的同事刘某离职。公司主管又要求高女士接手刘某的全部电商订单工作。高女士虽然在次日回复“收到”，但她认为自己现有的工作已经完全饱和，“挤不出时间”再去处理需要对接更多销售人员的电商订单。高女士向人事表示，她同意适当加班，但如果完全接手刘某的业务，将产生大量加班，所以不同意接手刘某的业务。

The former employee, surnamed Gao, had been with the company as an order clerk for more than two years when, due to personnel changes, she was asked to take over the duties of a departing colleague. This change caused the number of sales representatives she liaised with to surge from 18 to 52, significantly increasing her workload.

Shortly afterward, another colleague responsible for e-commerce order processing also resigned. The company instructed Gao to take on these additional responsibilities. She expressed willingness to work some overtime but declined to fully assume the role.

双方在劳动合同中约定，劳动者拒绝正常工作交接、工作安排、出差、培训、调动等行为，公司可立即解除劳动合同并不支付经济补偿金。在沟通无果后，公司以高女士“拒绝正常工作交接、工作安排”构成严重违纪为由，接连发出两份书面警告。面对高女士的持续拒绝，公司最终发出辞退通知书，将其开除，且不支付任何经济补偿金。

Citing a clause in her employment contract that stated refusal to accept work assignments constituted grounds for immediate dismissal without severance, the company issued two formal warnings. When Gao maintained her refusal, she was terminated without compensation.

高女士感到非常愤怒：明明自己已经接手了一位同事的工作，工作量已经饱和，为什么拒绝承担“第三个人”的工作，就要被“合法辞退”？高女士遂起诉要求某公司支付违法解除劳动关系赔偿金。

北京三中院审理后认为，第一，高女士已经有某公司安排的日常工作，且并无不胜任工作或失职情形，故不存在适用惩戒解雇这一最严重的违纪违约措施的空间。双方虽在劳动合同中约定“拒绝正常工作交接”可解除双方劳动关系并且可不支付任何补偿，但根据已查明的事实，高女士因其本身工作量已经饱和，故拒绝某公司安排其接手离职人员刘某的工作，难以认定为“拒绝正常工作交接”。

其二，高女士此前已经接手过一名员工的工作，拒绝接手新的工作安排，并非是对抗企业正常经营管理秩序，综合本案案情，某公司以“拒绝正常工作交接”为由解除与高女士的劳动关系，缺乏合法性及合理性。

法院最终认定某公司构成违法解除，并判决某公司向高女士支付违法解除劳动关系赔偿金12万余元。

Feeling the dismissal was unjust, Gao filed a lawsuit against the company. Beijing No 3 Intermediate People's Court ruled in her favor. The court found that Gao was not at fault, as her refusal was based on a genuine workload concern — not misconduct. It deemed the dismissal disproportionate and unlawful.

法官提醒，单方无偿解除劳动合同是对劳动者最严重的惩戒措施。用人单位若以劳动者严重违纪为由行使单方解除权，应当符合比例原则——即劳动者的行为具有一定的严重性，达到了足以解除劳动合同的程度。本案明确指出，面对公司人员调整、同事离职带来的“工作量骤增”，员工有权基于真实的工作饱和状态说“不”，用人单位不得简单地以“拒绝工作安排”为由开除行使正当权利的劳动者。

The judge emphasized that employees have the right to reject unreasonable workloads and that employers cannot dismiss staff simply for refusing tasks beyond their capacity.

来源：北京日报 北京市第三中级人民法院

China Daily精读计划

每天20分钟，英语全面提升！