Beijing arbitration: AI replacement isn't lawful grounds for dismissal
Beijing's labor arbitration authorities have ruled that "AI replacing a position ≠ legal dismissal." In short: adopting AI is a business decision, not a legal excuse to terminate an employee under the "major change in objective circumstances" clause.
The case centered on Liu, a long-tenured employee who handled manual map data collection. After the company shifted to AI-managed data collection and shut down Liu's department, it terminated his contract, claiming a major, unforeseeable change made the contract impossible to perform. The committee found the termination illegal.
Why "objective circumstance change" didn't apply
Under China's labor framework, a "major change in objective circumstances" refers to events that are both unforeseeable and irresistible-think natural disasters, sudden policy changes, or mandated relocations. These are outside an employer's routine business choices and risk tolerance.
Adopting AI is a strategic choice to compete and improve efficiency. While it can reshape jobs, it doesn't meet the unpredictability or irresistibility standard. Pushing that risk onto employees won't hold up.
What this means for HR and Legal
- Do not cite "objective circumstance change" solely because software or models take over tasks.
- Prioritize negotiated contract changes: scope of duties, job title, targets, and pay structure.
- Offer concrete skills training that maps to new workflows (e.g., data QA, labeling oversight, AI operations). Keep records of offers and responses.
- Attempt internal reassignment before termination. Document the search, interviews, and employee feedback.
- If termination is necessary, use proper grounds and follow procedure: consultation, notice, and statutory economic compensation.
Compliance steps you can act on this quarter
- Inventory roles impacted by AI and define redeployment paths for each role.
- Create a standard reskilling offer letter and a reassignment matrix that managers must use.
- Update termination templates-remove blanket "objective change" language tied to tech upgrades.
- Run a manager briefing on lawful grounds, documentation standards, and arbitration expectations.
- Build an "arbitration file" for each affected role: business rationale, risk assessment, communications, training options, and reassignment attempts.
Red flags that invite disputes
- Immediate department shutdown after an AI rollout with no redeployment plan.
- One-size-fits-all notices citing "major changes" without specifics tied to law.
- No evidence of consultation, training offers, or real reassignment efforts.
Expert view
As Wang Peng, associate researcher at the Beijing Academy of Social Sciences, noted, the decision protects legitimate employee rights and helps reduce anxiety about AI. It also supports labor market stability by signaling that tech upgrades must be paired with people plans.
Legal context and reference
The core test here is foreseeability and irresistibility. Force majeure and externally driven policy shifts can qualify; internal technology upgrades typically do not. For reference, see the PRC Labor Contract Law (English translation).
Practical takeaway for employers
AI adoption requires more than a procurement budget-it requires a transition plan. Negotiate contract changes, invest in training, and try reassignment before you consider termination. If you must separate, anchor every step in statute and keep your documentation tight.
Helpful training resources for redeployment
If you're building structured reskilling tracks for impacted roles, you can review curated AI learning paths by job here: AI courses by job. For a broader catalog that teams can pick from, see latest AI courses.
Your membership also unlocks:
