Order to transfer to different job or department

An employee, based at a local work location, hastily gathers their belongings as they receive an unexpected personnel appointment, causing them considerable discomfort. Companies routinely issue various personnel orders, including regional assignments, department transfers, standby orders, and dismissals, which employees often accept without protest. These personnel appointments serve multiple purposes, such as enhancing work efficiency, boosting productivity, reorganizing the organization, facilitating personnel exchanges, mitigating management risks, and facilitating technology transfers between affiliated firms. Generally, these personnel orders fall within the purview of the employer, granting the company substantial discretion. However, are there any limitations imposed on employers in this regard? Recently, the head of the Human Resources department in a certain company approached me seeking a solution for an employee who adamantly resisted a local assignment and threatened legal action if coerced. This company has routinely issued personnel orders for various reasons, met with little resistance from employees. When an employee challenged one such order, it created an uncomfortable situation that required intervention. While companies have discretion regarding personnel orders, they cannot issue them arbitrarily without limitations. A precedent has set forth three requirements for justifying a personnel order: 1) a legitimate business necessity, 2) the absence of detrimental impact on the employee's life, and 3) employee consent or a genuine consultation process. Failure to meet these legitimacy criteria has led to several cases where personnel orders were deemed unfair. First and foremost, there must be a "business necessity" for personnel orders, which can encompass various reasons such as optimizing human resource allocation, improving work efficiency, nurturing employee skills, boosting work motivation, revitalizing business operations, adjusting personnel due to technological advancements or corporate reorganization, and maintaining workplace order. Furthermore, personnel orders should not cause any harm to employees in their daily lives. "Detriments in daily life" pertain to any disadvantages suffered by employees as a result of personnel orders. Even if such orders are necessary for work, they are invalidated if they bring about significant and unforeseeable detrimental changes to the employee's life without justifiable reasons. The predictability and manageability of these life disadvantages are determined by factors like changes in job descriptions affecting work performance, alterations in work locations impacting commute logistics, or any special benefits employees received due to their previous roles. For instance, if a worker living in Ilsan, who previously worked at the Incheon branch, is transferred to the Daejeon branch without prior agreement, it would adversely affect their daily life. However, if the company provides assistance like covering relocation expenses, offering housing loans, or providing the employee's previous salary for a defined period, it can mitigate these living disadvantages. Finally, employee consent to the company's personnel order justifies the order. However, obtaining consent can be challenging in practice, making it possible if a sincere consultation process has been followed when issuing personnel orders. In summary, there are specific requirements to assess the legitimacy of personnel orders that may appear to be at the company's discretion. It is essential not to misconstrue the ability to issue personnel orders freely just because no issues have arisen in the past. Personnel orders must be grounded in reasonable justifications.

Only humans have IP protection for now

Q: How is AI copyright protected under current laws and regulations? A: Current patent laws, as outlined in Article 33 of the Patent Act, stipulate that patents can be granted to the 'person' responsible for inventing or their legal successors. Consequently, patent law restricts inventors to individuals (natural persons). Regarding copyright, Article 2, Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Copyright Act define 'work' as a creative expression of thoughts or emotions by a 'human being.' The law explicitly specifies that AI, being non-human, cannot be considered the author of a work. Nevertheless, patent rights or copyrights can be granted to inventions or creations made with the assistance of AI, provided that they incorporate human creative efforts. The U.S. Copyright Office has been developing guidelines on this matter since March of the previous year. Q: It appears there are ongoing discussions about the recognition of AI copyright. Can you provide more insight? A: On December 21, 2020, a group of 11 individuals, including Representative Joo Ho-young, proposed a legislative amendment to the National Assembly to introduce the concept of 'AI work' explicitly into the copyright law system. This proposed amendment acknowledges not AI itself but rather those who create works utilizing AI services, as well as AI producers and service providers who contribute creatively to AI work production, as the eligible subjects of copyright. Additionally, AI-generated creations will be categorized as special works and protected for a period of five years. The matter of whether to grant exclusive rights to AI-generated output or to recognize AI as the inventor or creator itself is a topic that must be addressed through societal discourse, consensus-building, and legislative action. Q: Concerns arise when AI learns from existing creative works, potentially infringing upon copyright. Are there efforts to mitigate this issue? A: Challenges related to the infringement of third-party rights during the development of learning datasets have emerged. To address this concern, the recent revision of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act has included data illegal acquisition as a form of unfair competition. While there is increasing clarity regarding data protection, there remain uncertainties regarding the extent to which data can be ethically collected and employed for AI learning purposes. The establishment of AI-related technology is a pivotal factor that can impact a nation's competitiveness in the future. Consequently, there is a pressing need to create an environment that actively encourages AI development through institutional support.

What is the trial bundle in English civil litigation?

In English civil litigation, a trial bundle is a compilation of documents that is prepared and presented to the court and all parties involved in a case for use during the trial. It is a crucial element of the trial process and contains the key documents that will be referred to and relied upon during the proceedings. The trial bundle serves several purposes, including: Providing a Complete Record: The trial bundle ensures that all relevant documents are gathered and organized in a single compilation, providing a complete record of the case for easy reference during the trial. Facilitating Case Presentation: It helps the court, the parties, and their legal representatives to locate and access important documents quickly, thereby facilitating a smoother presentation of the case during the trial. Ensuring Consistency: The trial bundle helps ensure that all parties have access to the same set of documents, reducing the potential for disputes or confusion about the evidence being presented. Promoting Efficiency: By having all relevant documents in one place, the trial bundle streamlines the trial process, saving time and avoiding unnecessary delays. The contents of a trial bundle can vary depending on the complexity of the case, but generally, it includes the following: Pleadings: The claim form, statements of case (such as particulars of claim, defense, and counterclaim), and any subsequent amendments. Witness Statements: Signed statements from witnesses, which outline their evidence and are presented as written evidence in court. Expert Reports: Reports from expert witnesses who have been instructed by either party to provide specialized opinions or analysis on specific matters related to the case. Relevant Legislation and Case Law: Copies of applicable statutes, regulations, and legal precedents that are relevant to the issues being litigated. Key Correspondence: Significant correspondence between the parties that has a bearing on the case. Other Supporting Documents: Any additional documents that are central to the case, such as contracts, agreements, invoices, photographs, or any other relevant evidence. The preparation of a trial bundle is typically a collaborative effort between the parties involved, and it must comply with the court's specific rules and any directions provided by the court. It is usually prepared well in advance of the trial to allow sufficient time for all parties to review the documents and prepare their case accordingly.

What is trial time table under English civil litigation?

The trial timetable under English civil litigation is a schedule that sets out the dates and deadlines for various events leading up to and during the trial. The timetable is agreed upon by the parties and the court, and it is designed to ensure that the trial is conducted efficiently and fairly. The trial timetable typically includes the following dates and deadlines: The date of the pre-trial review. This is a hearing that takes place before the trial to discuss outstanding issues and to set a timetable for the trial. The date for the exchange of final witness statements. This is the date by which the parties must exchange their final witness statements. The date for the exchange of final skeleton arguments. This is the date by which the parties must exchange their final skeleton arguments. The date of the trial. This is the date on which the trial will begin. The trial timetable may also include other dates and deadlines, such as the date for the exchange of expert reports or the date for the filing of applications. The trial timetable is an important part of the English civil litigation process, as it helps to ensure that the trial is conducted efficiently and fairly. By agreeing on a timetable, the parties can avoid last-minute surprises and ensure that they are prepared for the trial. Here are some of the factors that may affect the trial timetable: The complexity of the case. The more complex the case, the longer the trial timetable is likely to be. The number of witnesses. The more witnesses there are, the longer the trial timetable is likely to be. The availability of the court. The court may not be available for trial on certain dates, so the trial timetable may need to be adjusted accordingly. If you are involved in a civil litigation case in England, you should be aware of the trial timetable process. The trial timetable is an important part of the litigation process, and it can help to ensure that your case is ready for trial.

What is pre-trial review under English civil litigation?

A pre-trial review (PTR) is a hearing that takes place before a trial in English civil litigation. The purpose of the PTR is to: Identify and resolve any outstanding issues in the case. This could include issues such as the admissibility of evidence, the number of witnesses to be called, and the length of the trial. Ensure that the case is ready for trial. This includes ensuring that all relevant documents have been exchanged between the parties, and that the parties are ready to present their cases at trial. Set a timetable for the trial. This includes setting a date for the trial, and a schedule for the exchange of further documents and witness statements. The PTR is usually held in front of a judge, but it can also be held in front of a district judge or a Master. The PTR is an important part of the English civil litigation process, as it helps to ensure that cases are ready for trial and that the trial is conducted efficiently. Here are some of the topics that may be discussed at a pre-trial review: The admissibility of evidence. The parties may discuss which evidence will be admissible at trial. This could include documents, witness statements, and expert reports. The number of witnesses. The parties may agree on the number of witnesses who will be called at trial. The length of the trial. The parties may agree on the length of the trial. This could be a specific number of days, or it could be a range of days. Any other outstanding issues. The parties may discuss any other outstanding issues in the case. This could include issues such as the use of technology at trial, or the need for an interpreter. If you are involved in a civil litigation case in England, you should be aware of the pre-trial review process. The PTR is an important part of the litigation process, and it can help to ensure that your case is ready for trial.

How many days in advance should a witness summons must be served before the court date for English civil litigation?

According to the Civil Procedure Rules 1998, a witness summons must be served at least 7 days before the court date for English civil litigation. However, there is an exception to this rule if the court is satisfied that it is not practicable to serve the summons within 7 days. In such cases, the court may order that the summons be served at a later date. Here are some of the factors that the court will consider when deciding whether it is practicable to serve a witness summons within 7 days: The urgency of the case The availability of the witness The distance that the witness has to travel to attend court The inconvenience that serving the summons within 7 days would cause to the witness If you are served with a witness summons, you should check the date on the summons to see how many days in advance it was served. If you believe that the summons was not served within 7 days, you should contact the party who served the summons and ask them to explain why it was not served within the required time period. If you are not satisfied with their explanation, you may be able to apply to the court for an order that the summons be set aside.

Under English civil litigation, if a witness summons is served by the court but is not accompanied by an offer to compensate for expenses or lost time, is the summons still invalid?

No, a witness summons served by the court is not invalid if it is not accompanied by an offer to compensate for expenses or lost time. However, the witness may be able to apply to the court for an order that they be paid their expenses and lost time. The Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) state that a witness summons must be accompanied by an offer to pay the witness's reasonable expenses and loss of earnings. However, there is an exception to this rule if the court is satisfied that the witness is unlikely to be able to claim their expenses or lost time. In practice, most witness summonses are accompanied by an offer to pay the witness's expenses and lost time. However, if a witness summons is not accompanied by such an offer, the witness may still be required to attend court. If the witness does attend court, they may be able to apply to the court for an order that they be paid their expenses and lost time. The court will consider a number of factors when deciding whether to make an order for payment of expenses and lost time, including the witness's financial circumstances, the length of time they were required to attend court, and the inconvenience they suffered. If you are a witness who has been served with a witness summons, and you are not sure whether you will be paid your expenses and lost time, you should speak to a lawyer.