I just came across a scenario wherein an employee is recruited for a particular job position. After 2 years, management decided that no more that job position is required, hence they abolished the same and asked that person to move to another department. But that concerned person refused to accept the new department.
Are there any legal issues involved in this case? Whether the concerned person can approach the labor court in this case.
From India, Coimbatore
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)
Are there any legal issues involved in this case? Whether the concerned person can approach the labor court in this case.
From India, Coimbatore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Rajesh S,
What clause about transfer has been mentioned in the appointment letter issued to the employee? Many companies include the following clause:
Your services are liable to be transferred from one department to another, from one place to another place, and also liable to be transferred to any place, associate company's subsidiary organizations, or any company wherever the interest of the principal in India. Also, your services are liable for deputation or loan to another organization in which the management may have an interest.
In the above paragraph, the verbiage about the transfer clause is clear. If this type of clause is included in the letter of appointment, then the company's administration can issue the transfer order (TO). The conditions of TO are binding on the employee, and if he/she does not oblige to the conditions, then the administration can initiate disciplinary action against the employee.
However, the above-mentioned approach is of negative discipline. Counsel the employee and explain to the employee that the administration does not wish to have any conflict with the employee. The transfer is in the interest of both the employee and the company. Therefore, he/she should not create conditions wherein his/her exit from the company happens on a bitter note.
Thanks,
Dinesh Divekar
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(1)
Amend(0)
8218What clause about transfer has been mentioned in the appointment letter issued to the employee? Many companies include the following clause:
Your services are liable to be transferred from one department to another, from one place to another place, and also liable to be transferred to any place, associate company's subsidiary organizations, or any company wherever the interest of the principal in India. Also, your services are liable for deputation or loan to another organization in which the management may have an interest.
In the above paragraph, the verbiage about the transfer clause is clear. If this type of clause is included in the letter of appointment, then the company's administration can issue the transfer order (TO). The conditions of TO are binding on the employee, and if he/she does not oblige to the conditions, then the administration can initiate disciplinary action against the employee.
However, the above-mentioned approach is of negative discipline. Counsel the employee and explain to the employee that the administration does not wish to have any conflict with the employee. The transfer is in the interest of both the employee and the company. Therefore, he/she should not create conditions wherein his/her exit from the company happens on a bitter note.
Thanks,
Dinesh Divekar
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(1)Amend(0)
Whatever Dinesh has stated is perfect. To add to what he has said, I would say that as far as an employer is concerned, whenever a position is abolished, there are two options: one is to retrench the employee, or to offer them another position that requires the same skill set and provides a salary and perks not less than what they were receiving in the previous position. Therefore, even if the employee prefers a legal battle, they will not be able to win it. They cannot directly go to the Labour Court but can approach the Labour Officer, who acts as a conciliation officer. During the conciliation process, it can be stated that the employee has not been denied employment but has been offered a position in another department, which would satisfy the relevant provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act.
From India, Kannur
Acknowledge(1)Amend(0)
0
0
0
0
From India, Kannur
Acknowledge(1)Amend(0)Vijaykumar51
Agree
0
0
HR_Chandan
Well said.
0
0
Now the situation is the company doesn't require a person for that position. Instead of terminating him, management offers him new job opportunities, even though they are well aware that he does not possess the skills required for the new position. This is an indirect approach by management to remove an employee from the organization.
Now, his situation is that he doesn't have any other option but to leave the organization and look for other job opportunities.
In this case, the employee has not made any mistakes.
From India, Coimbatore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Now, his situation is that he doesn't have any other option but to leave the organization and look for other job opportunities.
In this case, the employee has not made any mistakes.
From India, Coimbatore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
This will stand only if the position is abolished and the new position offered does not require any additional skills. If your intention is to eliminate the employee, you can do so after following the procedures, i.e., paying whatever compensation is applicable, etc. You cannot just transfer an employee to another department or to a position in which he cannot contribute anything and then, after a few months, ask him to leave on the grounds of non-performance. That is injustice and not acceptable.
From India, Kannur
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Kannur
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Rajesh,
It would be helpful if you could provide details of the type of organization you work with. In a government company, it is common for issues like refusal to accept a transfer to arise, whereas in private companies, this situation rarely occurs. If the job, designation, or department/function is abolished, the employee cannot expect to continue being paid for doing nothing. If he does not accept the transfer, he could potentially be retrenched on the grounds that the function no longer exists. (Madhu will have details of the procedure, I am sure.)
However, it is essential to understand what the original function was and what the new function entails. I know many individuals who have left or resigned from their jobs because it turned out to be sales-related, and they did not wish to pursue that kind of role. This factor may also play a significant role in decision-making.
Thank you.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
It would be helpful if you could provide details of the type of organization you work with. In a government company, it is common for issues like refusal to accept a transfer to arise, whereas in private companies, this situation rarely occurs. If the job, designation, or department/function is abolished, the employee cannot expect to continue being paid for doing nothing. If he does not accept the transfer, he could potentially be retrenched on the grounds that the function no longer exists. (Madhu will have details of the procedure, I am sure.)
However, it is essential to understand what the original function was and what the new function entails. I know many individuals who have left or resigned from their jobs because it turned out to be sales-related, and they did not wish to pursue that kind of role. This factor may also play a significant role in decision-making.
Thank you.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
He was assigned the job to take care of operations (supply chain management, stores, and production). After two years, a consultant came and suggested to the management that based on the production capacity, the role of the operations head was not necessary. Following the consultant's suggestion, management asked the individual to work in sales and marketing, an area in which he was not familiar.
From India, Coimbatore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Coimbatore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
That is the issue. If you feel that a particular person as a production head is not performing, you can ask him to go. But then somebody below him would become the Production Head. It is not that a position like Production Head is redundant.
Anyway, a production person cannot do a sales job because these are two extremes. Anyway, if he has been working as an HoD, then naturally he will not come under the scope of a workman, and hence he may not be able to fight legally. Then pay him whatever notice pay is required as per the contract of employment and relieve him.
From India, Kannur
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Anyway, a production person cannot do a sales job because these are two extremes. Anyway, if he has been working as an HoD, then naturally he will not come under the scope of a workman, and hence he may not be able to fight legally. Then pay him whatever notice pay is required as per the contract of employment and relieve him.
From India, Kannur
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Any employee is bound by the terms and conditions stipulated in the Appointment Letter. Generally, one of the conditions stipulated in the appointment letter will be "you are subjected to work in any department or section of the department or any location within India either existing or that may come in future at the discretion of the Management." Hence, transfer from one department to another department cannot be disputed unless it is deliberately done with a malafide intention. If it is a workman, he can approach the union and request for a change. If it is an executive/supervisor/manager, it is not worth challenging the action of the Management. In large organizations, deliberately, Management keeps changing the roles of the staff to make them multi-skilling competitive.
From India, Chennai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Chennai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Sales jobs are for a specific type of people. Someone who is from operations will mostly refuse to take up a sales job. If the management is going to insist, he will leave very soon.
I do not know of any company where there is no need to have a head of operations (especially if he is handling the supply chain). So, I am not sure of the organization of its structure or size. I am generally suspicious of consultants who make such suggestions, but then we know nothing about the company or business. I feel there is some other thing we are not being told. The owners suddenly telling a production head his position is abolished and he has to do sales (not supervise, but do sales) is strange to me.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I do not know of any company where there is no need to have a head of operations (especially if he is handling the supply chain). So, I am not sure of the organization of its structure or size. I am generally suspicious of consultants who make such suggestions, but then we know nothing about the company or business. I feel there is some other thing we are not being told. The owners suddenly telling a production head his position is abolished and he has to do sales (not supervise, but do sales) is strange to me.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)Engage with peers to discuss and resolve work and business challenges collaboratively. Our AI-powered platform, features real-time fact-checking, peer reviews, and an extensive historical knowledge base. - Register and Log In.
EMPLOYEE JOB SATISFACTION QUESTIONER.pdf
Employee Appraisal Form new.doc
Madhu.T.K
Agree to the observations