眼下正值毕业季，许多人不久后将入职单位、签署劳动合同，进行轮岗、定岗。近日，一则劳动争议案引发网友讨论，当技术电工被调去饲养员岗位，岗位争议该如何认定？是企业合理用工调整？还是变相贬损的岗位调整？
A court in Hunan province has ordered a livestock company to pay 13,586 yuan in compensation to an electrician whom it unilaterally transferred to work as a pig breeder, ruling that the reassignment constituted a fundamental breach of the employment contract.
电工被调岗去养猪
不去就自己离职？
2023年12月，来自湖南的龙某此前通过面试应聘进入到一家畜牧公司服务部从事电工工作，主要负责维修养殖户的视频监控设备。2025年4月，公司领导找他谈话，说要裁撤电工岗位，让龙某到养猪场去当饲养员。
公司以其电工岗位撤销为由，单方面将其调至养猪场担任饲养员，并要求接受三个月岗位技能培训。龙某认为，此次调岗让技术工种跨界从事毫无关联的体力劳动，实质上是带有贬损性的岗位“流放”，断然拒绝接受。
In December 2023, Long, a resident of Hunan province, was hired by a livestock company as an electrician in its service department, primarily responsible for maintaining video surveillance equipment at farming sites. In April 2025, management informed Long that his position was being abolished and that he would be transferred to a pig farm to work as a breeder.
The company unilaterally reassigned him to the farm role and required him to complete a three‑month skills training program. Long refused, arguing that the move effectively exiled a skilled technician to manual labor with no relevance to his expertise — a demotion in all but name.
“他们那边态度就很强硬，我非得要过去养猪，如果说我不过去，就不服从公司的安排，要不就我自己离职。 ”当事人龙某说。
龙某再次与公司协商无果后，申请了劳动仲裁，要求解除劳动合同，并要求公司支付违法解除劳动关系的经济补偿金。经劳动争议仲裁院沟通后，畜牧公司表示不同意调解，龙某最终诉至法院。
After further negotiations failed, Long filed for labor arbitration, seeking termination of his contract and compensation for unlawful dismissal. When the company declined mediation, the case proceeded to court.
争议焦点：
“调岗”是否具有正当性与合法性？
■ 劳动仲裁委
仲裁委经过审查认为，依据双方劳动合同约定，公司可根据经营实际调整员工岗位。本案中，公司因撤销电工岗位对龙某进行调岗，且调岗后未降低其薪资待遇，同时为其提供了三个月的岗位培训期。综合以上情形，仲裁委认定公司此次调岗合理正当，无需向龙某支付经济补偿。
The arbitration panel ruled in favor of the company, citing a clause in the employment contract that allowed the employer to adjust positions based on operational needs. Since Long's salary remained unchanged and the company offered training for the new role, the panel deemed the transfer reasonable and denied compensation.
■ 一审法院
龙某不服，向当地法院提起诉讼。一审法院审理认为，双方签订的《全日制用工劳动合同》明确约定，公司可根据工作及生产经营需要调整员工岗位，龙某理应依约服从合理调岗。
公司曾两次向龙某下发催岗通知函，要求其前往新岗位报到，逾期将按旷工处理，但龙某并未如期上岗。一审法院认定，龙某无正当理由拒绝上岗、拒不配合岗位培训，属于消极履行劳动合同义务，因此驳回了龙某要求公司支付经济补偿金的诉讼请求。
Long appealed to the local court. The trial court upheld the arbitration decision, noting that the contract explicitly permitted job adjustments. The company had issued two formal notices requiring Long to report to his new post, warning that failure to do so would be treated as absenteeism. Finding no justifiable reason for Long's refusal, the court dismissed his claim.
■ 二审法院
一审后龙某不服，向湖南省永州市中级人民法院提出上诉。二审法院认为，本案争议焦点主要在于，公司调整岗位是否具有正当性与合法性？是否有借调岗之名，变相逼迫劳动者离职的情况？当企业的用工自主权利与劳动者的合法权利产生冲突时，应当怎样找到平衡点呢？
法院经过审理，认为工作岗位是劳动合同的核心要素。劳动者入职时，跟公司的人事部门沟通的岗位是电工岗位，劳动者也具备相应的证书，并且在合同签订之后，他一直从事的岗位就是为养殖户的监控设施设备进行维护和保养。“电工”与“饲养员”在专业技能、工作性质、职业内容等方面存在本质差异，此调岗已构成对劳动合同的根本性变更，应当在双方协商一致的情况下才可以变更。
The Yongzhou Intermediate People's Court took a different view. The appellate court identified the core issue: whether the reassignment was justified and lawful, or whether it was a disguised attempt to force resignation.
The court underscored that job duties constitute a fundamental element of the employment contract. Long was hired specifically as an electrician, held relevant certifications, and had consistently performed electrical maintenance work throughout his tenure.
"Electrician" and "pig breeder" are inherently different in required skills, work nature, and professional content, the court reasoned. Such a transfer constituted a fundamental change to the employment contract, which requires mutual consent.
此外，法院审理发现，企业尽管对龙某说要裁撤电工岗位，之后却又将这一岗位外包出去，证明企业还是需要这一工种，但是企业并没有拿出任何有关龙某无法胜任该岗位的证据。因此，二审法院认为，企业撤销电工岗位，并不具备必要性。
饲料公司未能举证证明其撤销电工岗位的经营必要性，亦无法说明将专业技术人员调至体力劳动岗位的合理逻辑。该行为已实质构成 “未按照劳动合同约定提供劳动条件” ，属于用人单位根本违约。因此，龙某有权解除劳动合同并要求经济补偿。
Crucially, the court found that while the company claimed the electrician role was eliminated, it subsequently outsourced the same function — proving that the position remained necessary. The company presented no evidence that Long was unfit for his original role. Thus, the elimination lacked operational justification.
The court further ruled that the company failed to provide adequate working conditions as stipulated in the contract, constituting a fundamental breach. Long was therefore entitled to terminate the contract and claim statutory compensation.
最终，法院判决撤销原判，改判饲料公司向龙某支付经济补偿金13586元。
The appellate court overturned the previous rulings and ordered the livestock company to pay Long 13,586 yuan in economic compensation.
法官提示：和谐劳动关系的构建，需在企业管理效率与劳动者权益保障之间找到最佳平衡点。用人单位应摒弃“我令你从”的陈旧思维，在行使用工自主权时注入更多协商与善意；劳动者则应提升权利意识，在遭遇不公时善于运用法律武器。司法实践通过个案裁判不断明晰规则，正是为了引导全社会形成 “权利有边界，管理须合规” 的法治化用工环境。
来源： 央视新闻微信公众号
跟着China Daily
精读英语新闻
“无痛”学英语，每天20分钟就够！
热门跟贴