Introduction
In Ethiopian labor law, the right of an employer to assign and transfer employees is a well-established administrative prerogative, essential for the efficient management of a business. The general principle, repeatedly affirmed by the Federal Supreme Court Cassation Bench, holds that an employee must first comply with a transfer order and may then submit a grievance if they object to it. An outright refusal to report to a new post can legally be considered an unauthorized absence, potentially leading to termination. However, this employer right is not absolute. In its recent jurisprudence, the Cassation Bench has clarified that this power must be exercised reasonably and with due consideration for the employee’s circumstances.
This chapter analyzes Cassation Case No. 238246, a landmark decision that illustrates the judiciary’s role in balancing the employer’s right to transfer against the severe personal hardship an employee may face. The ruling demonstrates that the legality of an administrative action, such as termination for absence following a transfer, is not determined in a vacuum but must be weighed against the factual realities confronting the employee.
The Established Principle: An Employer’s Right to Transfer
The Cassation Bench has consistently upheld the employer’s right to deploy its workforce as needed. In prior decisions, such as those in File Nos. 38189 and 37778 (Vol. 8), the court established a clear protocol:
- Transferring an employee is an administrative right of the employer.
- An employee with a grievance regarding the transfer must “perform their duties while adhering to protocol and submitting their complaint.”
- An employee who fails to accept the transfer and does not report for work can be subject to legal disciplinary action by the employer.
This principle provides employers with the necessary authority to manage their operations. However, the Bench has also recognized that this authority is not without limits.
The Counter-Principle: The Duty to Consider Factual Circumstances
While an employee is expected to report to a new post, the Cassation Bench, in File No. 125004 (Vol. 20), introduced a crucial counter-principle: an employer has a duty to “assess the existing factual circumstances” before taking punitive action against an employee who fails to appear at the transferred location.
This signals that the employer’s right must be tempered with reasonableness. The key takeaway is that “it is necessary to consider the burden the transfer places on the employee.” Therefore, the appropriateness of an administrative action is not judged solely on the fact of the employee’s absence, but on the entire context surrounding that absence.
Analysis of Cassation Case No. 238246
This case provides a powerful application of the counter-principle, where the court scrutinized the employer’s actions in light of the employee’s profound personal tragedy.
Case Facts
- The employer (Applicant) transferred an employee (Respondent) to its Dessie branch.
- The employee did not report to the Dessie branch and was absent for more than five consecutive working days.
- Citing this absence, the employer terminated the employee’s contract.
- The employee challenged the termination, providing justification for their absence.
The Employee’s Justification
The lower court, upon examining the merits, verified the employee’s extraordinary circumstances:
- The employee’s wife and newborn child had tragically passed away in a hospital due to complications during childbirth.
- The employee was actively following up on a police investigation related to the deaths.
- The employee was the sole caregiver for his other motherless children, who were currently enrolled in school.
These circumstances, the court found, made it practically impossible for the employee to relocate to Dessie at that time.
The Court’s Ruling
The lower court concluded that the employer’s decision to terminate the contract was illegal because it had failed to take these severe and verifiable extenuating circumstances into account.
The Cassation Bench upheld this decision, finding no fundamental error of law. The Bench’s reasoning was clear: while it was undisputed that the employee was absent, he had provided “sufficient justification.” The employer’s failure to consider this justification was the critical flaw in its administrative action. The Bench concluded that the “appropriateness of administrative actions taken following a transfer should be determined by weighing the existing factual circumstances.”
Conclusion: The Doctrine of Reasonableness in Labor Relations
Cassation Case No. 238246 does not abolish the employer’s right to transfer but places important constraints upon it. It solidifies the principle that administrative rights must be exercised in good faith and with a degree of reasonableness. An employer cannot act mechanically, citing the letter of the law regarding absence, while ignoring profound human circumstances that make compliance impossible.
This decision establishes a de facto “doctrine of reasonableness” in the context of employee transfers. It requires employers, before taking severe disciplinary action, to consider any justifications provided by an employee for their failure to report to a new post. Where the justification is compelling, verifiable, and demonstrates a significant personal hardship, a rigid application of administrative rules may be deemed illegal. The ruling thus ensures that Ethiopian labor law is applied not just efficiently, but also equitably.