The 9th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation has issued a notable ruling regarding the transfer of a worker to a workplace in another city without their consent. The Chamber stated that while a direct cancellation of the transfer process might not be ordered, the legality of the action can be subject to judicial review if there is a legal interest.
In the case subject to the ruling, a worker employed as a technician was first sent to a workplace belonging to the same company approximately 400 kilometers away. After some time, their place of duty was moved again to another workplace approximately 600 kilometers away. During this process, the worker's salary also decreased.
Following a lawsuit filed by the worker, they returned to their former position. However, three months after starting work at the former workplace, they were reassigned to a facility in another city by a decision of the Human Resources Department. Thereupon, the employee applied to the Labor Court again, claiming that the second assignment was unlawful.
LABOR COURT ACCEPTED, APPELLATE COURT REJECTED
The plaintiff worker requested a preliminary injunction to stop the substantial change in working conditions, stating that they wanted to return to their former place of duty. The defendant company argued that the transfer was an administrative act and therefore the dispute should be heard in administrative courts. The company also claimed that the assignment was based on an operational decision.
The Labor Court evaluated that the worker was sent to another thermal power plant against their own request and consent, decided that this action constituted a substantial change in working conditions, and accepted the case.
Upon the defendant company's application, the file was moved to the Regional Court of Justice. In the appellate review, the Labor Court's decision was overturned and the case was dismissed on the grounds that there is no specific type of lawsuit for the cancellation of a job or workplace change made by the employer based on their management right under Labor Law No. 4857.
The 9th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, which examined the file upon the worker's appeal, made a different assessment. The Chamber ruled that while the transfer process cannot be directly canceled, the legality of the action can be determined if the worker has a legal interest.
The Court of Cassation found it erroneous that the case was dismissed when the illegality of the transfer process subject to the lawsuit should have been determined in the concrete case. For this reason, the Regional Court of Justice's decision was overturned. The ruling is considered a precedent regarding the limits of the employer's authority to change the place of duty and the legal remedies available for transfers made without the worker's consent.
News Source: 12punto
