Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Decision on “Personnel Transfer (Direct → Retention Team)” (Unfair Dismissal 190)
- Date2026/02/09 04:12
- Read 261
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “personnel transfer (Direct → Retention Team).”
Decision Committee: Busan Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025BuHae9042 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
December 15, 2025 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issues:
A. Necessity of the personnel transfer
The transfer was implemented in a situation where an employee in the Direct Department had exceeded the maximum service period and it was unavoidable to transfer such employee to the Retention Team, so the business necessity of the transfer was recognized.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, an employee who had been working in the Direct Department received a personnel transfer to the Retention Team. The employee claimed that this transfer constituted an unfair reassignment/transfer equivalent in substance to unfair dismissal and applied to the Labor Relations Commission for relief.
The Busan Regional Labor Relations Commission focused its examination on the necessity of the personnel transfer, the degree of disadvantage in the employee’s living conditions, and whether procedures required under the principle of good faith (duty to consult) had been observed, and ultimately ruled in favor of the employer.
In disputes over unfair dismissal and redundancy dismissal, it is frequently disputed whether a personnel move amounts to a disadvantageous measure equivalent to disciplinary action or dismissal, or whether it is a legitimate exercise of managerial prerogative. Accordingly, this decision serves as an important reference in the practice of Labor Law Firm Law& as well.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is:
“Where an employee in the Direct Department, having exceeded the maximum service period, is transferred to the Retention Team and, without separate individual consultation procedures, suffers disadvantages such as a reduction in bonuses, whether such personnel transfer constitutes an unfair personnel measure that amounts to an abuse of rights.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case found that: the employer operated a maximum service period for employees in the Direct Department and there was a need to transfer those who exceeded that period to the Retention Team; there was no change in total working hours or place of work before and after the transfer; the reduction in bonuses resulted from differences in the incentive structure due to the nature of the work; and the company had not entirely failed to communicate, as it had notified employees in advance of the criteria and possibility of personnel moves through internal network announcements and meetings with supervisors.
In light of these circumstances, the Commission held that the business necessity of the personnel transfer was recognized, that it was difficult to view the transfer as causing a disadvantage in the employee’s living conditions that significantly exceeded what employees ordinarily must endure, and that the mere absence of individual consultation did not amount to a serious violation of procedures required under the principle of good faith.
There was no dismissal disposition in this case, and the employee’s argument was essentially to equate the personnel transfer with unfair dismissal. The Labor Relations Commission therefore dismissed the employee’s application for remedy on the ground that the personnel transfer could not be deemed unfair.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, it is necessary to understand that a reassignment/transfer or personnel transfer does not automatically constitute unfair dismissal; rather, business necessity, the degree of disadvantage in living conditions, and any procedural violations are assessed comprehensively. In particular, even if some wages decrease due to differences in incentive structures, it is difficult to have such decrease recognized as a disadvantage in living conditions if total working hours and the place of work remain the same and the change falls within the range ordinarily foreseeable given the nature of the work.
Therefore, when preparing for similar disputes, it is important to secure sufficient objective evidence not merely of dissatisfaction but of the specific changes in wages, working patterns, and job duties before and after the personnel transfer, whether the resulting disadvantage in living conditions significantly exceeds the range ordinarily to be endured, and whether the employer entirely failed to provide prior consultation or explanation.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, when implementing personnel management measures such as reassignment, transfer, or placement on standby, it is necessary to always review, in line with the standards presented in Supreme Court precedents: (1) business necessity, (2) reasonableness of the selection of personnel, (3) disadvantage in the employee’s living conditions, and (4) compliance with consultation procedures required under the principle of good faith. As in this case, if the company consistently provides notice of criteria via the internal network, conducts regular interviews and performance feedback, and gives prior notice of the possibility of personnel moves, there is a greater likelihood that procedural legitimacy will be recognized even if individual consultation is somewhat insufficient.
In addition, if wage changes due to a personnel transfer are unavoidable, it is helpful for preventing disputes over unfair dismissal or unfair reassignment to design systems and internal rules clearly so that the employer can explain that the cause lies in differences in the nature of the work and the incentive scheme, and to retain related notices and explanatory materials.
To prevail in this type of case, employers should accurately understand the legal principles established in case law regarding the limits of the exercise of managerial prerogative over personnel, and should maintain their HR and labor management systems so that business necessity and compliance with procedures consistent with those principles can be proven through documents and records.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Necessity of the personnel transfer
The transfer was implemented in a situation where an employee in the Direct Department had exceeded the maximum service period and it was unavoidable to transfer such employee to the Retention Team, so the business necessity of the transfer is recognized.
B. Whether there was a disadvantage in living conditions
There was no change in total working hours or place of work before and after the personnel transfer. It is true that the employee’s bonuses were reduced after the transfer; however, in the Retention Team, incentives are applied according to the expertise and intensity required by the work, whereas in the Direct Department, due to the simple nature of the work, there are no incentives and wages are lower. This is attributable to the nature of the work, and it cannot be viewed that there was a disadvantage in living conditions to such an extent that the employee could not reasonably endure it.
C. Compliance with consultation procedures required under the principle of good faith
Although there was no individual consultation with the employee, the company has, since April 2020, provided monthly notice via the internal network of the criteria for transfer to Direct work and the evaluation criteria, and the employee’s immediate superior (team leader) mentioned the possibility of a personnel move in interviews regarding the employee’s poor performance. Considering that there was thus some communication, it is difficult to view that there was a procedural defect in the personnel transfer in this case to the extent of rendering it null and void.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Necessity of the personnel transfer
The transfer was implemented in a situation where an employee in the Direct Department had exceeded the maximum service period and it was unavoidable to transfer such employee to the Retention Team, so the business necessity of the transfer is recognized.
B. Whether there was a disadvantage in living conditions
There was no change in total working hours or place of work before and after the personnel transfer. It is true that the employee’s bonuses were reduced after the transfer; however, in the Retention Team, incentives are applied according to the expertise and intensity required by the work, whereas in the Direct Department, due to the simple nature of the work, there are no incentives and wages are lower. This is attributable to the nature of the work, and it cannot be viewed that there was a disadvantage in living conditions to such an extent that the employee could not reasonably endure it.
C. Compliance with consultation procedures required under the principle of good faith
Although there was no individual consultation with the employee, the company has, since April 2020, provided monthly notice via the internal network of the criteria for transfer to Direct work and the evaluation criteria, and the employee’s immediate superior (team leader) mentioned the possibility of a personnel move in interviews regarding the employee’s poor performance. Considering that there was thus some communication, it is difficult to view that there was a procedural defect in the personnel transfer in this case to the extent of rendering it null and void. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Voluntary Resignation upon Employer’s Recommendation (Severance Incentive Agreement)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Non-Formation of Employment Offer (Absence of Offer Letter)’” – Date of decision: – Case number: Initial decision upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, Personnel transfer (Direct → Retention Team), Performance evaluation · Poor performance, Others, Labor Law Firm Law&, Large labor law firm, Samseong-dong labor law firm, Samseong Station labor law firm, Gangnam labor law firm
※ This article is part of the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Dismissal of Application (Two Failures to Appear)’,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to Personnel Transfer (Direct → Retention Team) can be found in the “List of Decisions Related to Personnel Transfer (Direct → Retention Team).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “personnel transfer (Direct → Retention Team).”
Decision Committee: Busan Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025BuHae9042 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
December 15, 2025 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issues:
A. Necessity of the personnel transfer
The transfer was implemented in a situation where an employee in the Direct Department had exceeded the maximum service period and it was unavoidable to transfer such employee to the Retention Team, so the business necessity of the transfer was recognized.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, an employee who had been working in the Direct Department received a personnel transfer to the Retention Team. The employee claimed that this transfer constituted an unfair reassignment/transfer equivalent in substance to unfair dismissal and applied to the Labor Relations Commission for relief.
The Busan Regional Labor Relations Commission focused its examination on the necessity of the personnel transfer, the degree of disadvantage in the employee’s living conditions, and whether procedures required under the principle of good faith (duty to consult) had been observed, and ultimately ruled in favor of the employer.
In disputes over unfair dismissal and redundancy dismissal, it is frequently disputed whether a personnel move amounts to a disadvantageous measure equivalent to disciplinary action or dismissal, or whether it is a legitimate exercise of managerial prerogative. Accordingly, this decision serves as an important reference in the practice of Labor Law Firm Law& as well.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is:
“Where an employee in the Direct Department, having exceeded the maximum service period, is transferred to the Retention Team and, without separate individual consultation procedures, suffers disadvantages such as a reduction in bonuses, whether such personnel transfer constitutes an unfair personnel measure that amounts to an abuse of rights.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case found that: the employer operated a maximum service period for employees in the Direct Department and there was a need to transfer those who exceeded that period to the Retention Team; there was no change in total working hours or place of work before and after the transfer; the reduction in bonuses resulted from differences in the incentive structure due to the nature of the work; and the company had not entirely failed to communicate, as it had notified employees in advance of the criteria and possibility of personnel moves through internal network announcements and meetings with supervisors.
In light of these circumstances, the Commission held that the business necessity of the personnel transfer was recognized, that it was difficult to view the transfer as causing a disadvantage in the employee’s living conditions that significantly exceeded what employees ordinarily must endure, and that the mere absence of individual consultation did not amount to a serious violation of procedures required under the principle of good faith.
There was no dismissal disposition in this case, and the employee’s argument was essentially to equate the personnel transfer with unfair dismissal. The Labor Relations Commission therefore dismissed the employee’s application for remedy on the ground that the personnel transfer could not be deemed unfair.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, it is necessary to understand that a reassignment/transfer or personnel transfer does not automatically constitute unfair dismissal; rather, business necessity, the degree of disadvantage in living conditions, and any procedural violations are assessed comprehensively. In particular, even if some wages decrease due to differences in incentive structures, it is difficult to have such decrease recognized as a disadvantage in living conditions if total working hours and the place of work remain the same and the change falls within the range ordinarily foreseeable given the nature of the work.
Therefore, when preparing for similar disputes, it is important to secure sufficient objective evidence not merely of dissatisfaction but of the specific changes in wages, working patterns, and job duties before and after the personnel transfer, whether the resulting disadvantage in living conditions significantly exceeds the range ordinarily to be endured, and whether the employer entirely failed to provide prior consultation or explanation.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, when implementing personnel management measures such as reassignment, transfer, or placement on standby, it is necessary to always review, in line with the standards presented in Supreme Court precedents: (1) business necessity, (2) reasonableness of the selection of personnel, (3) disadvantage in the employee’s living conditions, and (4) compliance with consultation procedures required under the principle of good faith. As in this case, if the company consistently provides notice of criteria via the internal network, conducts regular interviews and performance feedback, and gives prior notice of the possibility of personnel moves, there is a greater likelihood that procedural legitimacy will be recognized even if individual consultation is somewhat insufficient.
In addition, if wage changes due to a personnel transfer are unavoidable, it is helpful for preventing disputes over unfair dismissal or unfair reassignment to design systems and internal rules clearly so that the employer can explain that the cause lies in differences in the nature of the work and the incentive scheme, and to retain related notices and explanatory materials.
To prevail in this type of case, employers should accurately understand the legal principles established in case law regarding the limits of the exercise of managerial prerogative over personnel, and should maintain their HR and labor management systems so that business necessity and compliance with procedures consistent with those principles can be proven through documents and records.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Necessity of the personnel transfer
The transfer was implemented in a situation where an employee in the Direct Department had exceeded the maximum service period and it was unavoidable to transfer such employee to the Retention Team, so the business necessity of the transfer is recognized.
B. Whether there was a disadvantage in living conditions
There was no change in total working hours or place of work before and after the personnel transfer. It is true that the employee’s bonuses were reduced after the transfer; however, in the Retention Team, incentives are applied according to the expertise and intensity required by the work, whereas in the Direct Department, due to the simple nature of the work, there are no incentives and wages are lower. This is attributable to the nature of the work, and it cannot be viewed that there was a disadvantage in living conditions to such an extent that the employee could not reasonably endure it.
C. Compliance with consultation procedures required under the principle of good faith
Although there was no individual consultation with the employee, the company has, since April 2020, provided monthly notice via the internal network of the criteria for transfer to Direct work and the evaluation criteria, and the employee’s immediate superior (team leader) mentioned the possibility of a personnel move in interviews regarding the employee’s poor performance. Considering that there was thus some communication, it is difficult to view that there was a procedural defect in the personnel transfer in this case to the extent of rendering it null and void.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Necessity of the personnel transfer
The transfer was implemented in a situation where an employee in the Direct Department had exceeded the maximum service period and it was unavoidable to transfer such employee to the Retention Team, so the business necessity of the transfer is recognized.
B. Whether there was a disadvantage in living conditions
There was no change in total working hours or place of work before and after the personnel transfer. It is true that the employee’s bonuses were reduced after the transfer; however, in the Retention Team, incentives are applied according to the expertise and intensity required by the work, whereas in the Direct Department, due to the simple nature of the work, there are no incentives and wages are lower. This is attributable to the nature of the work, and it cannot be viewed that there was a disadvantage in living conditions to such an extent that the employee could not reasonably endure it.
C. Compliance with consultation procedures required under the principle of good faith
Although there was no individual consultation with the employee, the company has, since April 2020, provided monthly notice via the internal network of the criteria for transfer to Direct work and the evaluation criteria, and the employee’s immediate superior (team leader) mentioned the possibility of a personnel move in interviews regarding the employee’s poor performance. Considering that there was thus some communication, it is difficult to view that there was a procedural defect in the personnel transfer in this case to the extent of rendering it null and void. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Voluntary Resignation upon Employer’s Recommendation (Severance Incentive Agreement)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Non-Formation of Employment Offer (Absence of Offer Letter)’” – Date of decision: – Case number: Initial decision upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, Personnel transfer (Direct → Retention Team), Performance evaluation · Poor performance, Others, Labor Law Firm Law&, Large labor law firm, Samseong-dong labor law firm, Samseong Station labor law firm, Gangnam labor law firm
※ This article is part of the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Dismissal of Application (Two Failures to Appear)’,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to Personnel Transfer (Direct → Retention Team) can be found in the “List of Decisions Related to Personnel Transfer (Direct → Retention Team).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
