Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Case on Transfer Order (Refusal of Operating Room Rotation System) (Unfair Dismissal 290)
- Date2026/03/17 04:04
- Read 210
[Case Information]
This case is a precedent in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of a “transfer order (refusal of operating room rotation system).”
Adjudicating body: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission, 2025Buhae9618 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.01.12 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issues:
A. Whether there was a business necessity: (1) The rotation system appears to be a reasonable scheme designed to manage personnel efficiently and fairly in the special work environment of an operating room; (2) If an employee refuses, without just cause, to comply with the agreed rotation system, this may disrupt operating room staffing and undermine fairness within the organization; (3) The employer cannot leave in the same department an employee who refuses to perform certain duties, and in particular, where the employee personally requested a transfer assignment…
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This unfair dismissal case concerns an employee working in a hospital operating room who, after a conflict over a rotation-based work system, received a personnel transfer order and then filed an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission. The Commission focused on whether the employer’s personnel order for transfer/relocation constituted a legitimate exercise of managerial prerogative, or whether it was in substance a disadvantageous personnel measure tantamount to unfair dismissal. Labor Law Firm Law& considers that, in disputes over transfer and relocation orders of this kind, accurately understanding the Labor Relations Commission’s analytical framework is critically important for responding to similar cases in the future.
Ⅱ. Issues
The issue in this case is whether, in a situation where an employee in the special work environment of an operating room refuses to comply with an agreed rotation-based work system, a personnel transfer order based on such refusal constitutes a justified transfer in terms of business necessity, degree of personal hardship, and consultation procedures, or whether it amounts to an abuse of managerial authority equivalent to unfair dismissal.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
The adjudicating panel in this case found that the rotation system is a reasonable scheme to manage operating room staff efficiently and fairly, that refusal to comply with the rotation system could disrupt operating room staffing and undermine fairness within the organization, and that, taking into account the fact that the employee personally requested a transfer assignment, there was business necessity for the personnel transfer order.
It further found that the personnel transfer involved only movement between floors, causing no commuting disadvantage; that special allowances and similar payments were made so that there was no economic disadvantage; and that it was difficult to view the transfer as a measure that deprived the employee of his or her career or seriously undermined his or her professional expertise. It also recognized that the employer had substantially fulfilled the duty to consult required under the principle of good faith, by continuously communicating with the employee and seeking his or her understanding.
In light of the above, the Commission held that the dismissal disposition in this case could not be regarded as unfair dismissal or an abuse of rights prohibited under Article 23 of the Labor Standards Act, and that it fell within the scope of a legitimate exercise of managerial prerogative in personnel matters.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s standpoint, to argue that a transfer or relocation is unfair, it is necessary to specifically prove not merely dissatisfaction with the work, but that there was no, or only a very weak, business necessity for the transfer, and that the personal hardship resulting from the transfer clearly exceeds the level that is “normally tolerable.” In particular, if the employee has a history of personally requesting a transfer or departmental move, it may become difficult to later challenge a subsequent personnel transfer order as entirely unfair. Accordingly, the content and background of such requests should be carefully documented in writing.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, when implementing personnel measures such as transfer/relocation or redundancy dismissals, it is important to: (1) clearly establish objective business necessity (e.g., need for workforce reallocation, maintaining a fair work system); (2) take supplementary measures to mitigate personal hardship, such as payment of allowances or adjustment of work locations; and (3) keep records showing that there was sufficient communication and consultation with the employee throughout the process. The more these three elements are satisfied, the more likely the Labor Relations Commission is to view the personnel order as a legitimate exercise of managerial prerogative. Employers are therefore advised to review their personnel regulations and actual operational practices in advance.
(ⓒ2026 copyright. Labor Attorney Youngseop Moon, Labor Law Firm Law&.)
2. Matters Adjudicated
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Business Necessity
(1) The rotation system appears to be a reasonable scheme to manage personnel efficiently and fairly in the special work environment of an operating room;
(2) If an employee refuses, without just cause, to comply with the agreed rotation system, this may disrupt operating room staffing and undermine fairness within the organization;
(3) The employer cannot leave in the same department an employee who refuses to perform certain duties, and in particular, taking into account that the employee personally requested a transfer assignment, there was business necessity for the personnel transfer order.
B. Personal Hardship
(1) The transfer involved only movement between floors, so there was no disadvantage in terms of commuting;
(2) Special allowances and similar payments were additionally made, so there was no economic disadvantage;
(3) It is difficult to conclude that the personnel transfer was a measure that deprived the employee of his or her career or seriously undermined his or her professional expertise. Accordingly, it is hard to view the personal hardship as clearly exceeding the level that is normally tolerable.
C. Compliance with Consultation Procedures
The employer continuously communicated with the employee and made efforts to obtain his or her understanding, and therefore is deemed to have sufficiently fulfilled the duty to consult required under the principle of good faith.
3. Summary of Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
A. Business Necessity
(1) The rotation system appears to be a reasonable scheme to manage personnel efficiently and fairly in the special work environment of an operating room;
(2) If an employee refuses, without just cause, to comply with the agreed rotation system, this may disrupt operating room staffing and undermine fairness within the organization;
(3) The employer cannot leave in the same department an employee who refuses to perform certain duties, and in particular, taking into account that the employee personally requested a transfer assignment, there was business necessity for the personnel transfer order.
B. Personal Hardship
(1) The transfer involved only movement between floors, so there was no disadvantage in terms of commuting;
(2) Special allowances and similar payments were additionally made, so there was no economic disadvantage;
(3) It is difficult to conclude that the personnel transfer was a measure that deprived the employee of his or her career or seriously undermined his or her professional expertise. Accordingly, it is hard to view the personal hardship as clearly exceeding the level that is normally tolerable.
C. Compliance with Consultation Procedures
The employer continuously communicated with the employee and made efforts to obtain his or her understanding, and therefore is deemed to have sufficiently fulfilled the duty to consult required under the principle of good faith.
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Case on Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)”
- “Unfair Dismissal Case on Dismissal of Application (Non-Appearance at Hearing)” – Date of decision: – Case number: Dismissed
- “Unfair Dismissal Case on Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, transfer order (refusal of operating room rotation system), personnel order·transfer, violation of company policy·non-compliance with work instructions, 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 Labor Law Firm Law&’s “Unfair Dismissal Case Law” series.
※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Case on Existence of Dismissal·Written Notice (Alleged Agreed Resignation),” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to transfer orders (refusal of operating room rotation system) can be viewed together in the “List of Decisions Related to Transfer Orders (Refusal of Operating Room Rotation System).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a precedent in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of a “transfer order (refusal of operating room rotation system).”
Adjudicating body: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission, 2025Buhae9618 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.01.12 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issues:
A. Whether there was a business necessity: (1) The rotation system appears to be a reasonable scheme designed to manage personnel efficiently and fairly in the special work environment of an operating room; (2) If an employee refuses, without just cause, to comply with the agreed rotation system, this may disrupt operating room staffing and undermine fairness within the organization; (3) The employer cannot leave in the same department an employee who refuses to perform certain duties, and in particular, where the employee personally requested a transfer assignment…
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This unfair dismissal case concerns an employee working in a hospital operating room who, after a conflict over a rotation-based work system, received a personnel transfer order and then filed an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission. The Commission focused on whether the employer’s personnel order for transfer/relocation constituted a legitimate exercise of managerial prerogative, or whether it was in substance a disadvantageous personnel measure tantamount to unfair dismissal. Labor Law Firm Law& considers that, in disputes over transfer and relocation orders of this kind, accurately understanding the Labor Relations Commission’s analytical framework is critically important for responding to similar cases in the future.
Ⅱ. Issues
The issue in this case is whether, in a situation where an employee in the special work environment of an operating room refuses to comply with an agreed rotation-based work system, a personnel transfer order based on such refusal constitutes a justified transfer in terms of business necessity, degree of personal hardship, and consultation procedures, or whether it amounts to an abuse of managerial authority equivalent to unfair dismissal.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
The adjudicating panel in this case found that the rotation system is a reasonable scheme to manage operating room staff efficiently and fairly, that refusal to comply with the rotation system could disrupt operating room staffing and undermine fairness within the organization, and that, taking into account the fact that the employee personally requested a transfer assignment, there was business necessity for the personnel transfer order.
It further found that the personnel transfer involved only movement between floors, causing no commuting disadvantage; that special allowances and similar payments were made so that there was no economic disadvantage; and that it was difficult to view the transfer as a measure that deprived the employee of his or her career or seriously undermined his or her professional expertise. It also recognized that the employer had substantially fulfilled the duty to consult required under the principle of good faith, by continuously communicating with the employee and seeking his or her understanding.
In light of the above, the Commission held that the dismissal disposition in this case could not be regarded as unfair dismissal or an abuse of rights prohibited under Article 23 of the Labor Standards Act, and that it fell within the scope of a legitimate exercise of managerial prerogative in personnel matters.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s standpoint, to argue that a transfer or relocation is unfair, it is necessary to specifically prove not merely dissatisfaction with the work, but that there was no, or only a very weak, business necessity for the transfer, and that the personal hardship resulting from the transfer clearly exceeds the level that is “normally tolerable.” In particular, if the employee has a history of personally requesting a transfer or departmental move, it may become difficult to later challenge a subsequent personnel transfer order as entirely unfair. Accordingly, the content and background of such requests should be carefully documented in writing.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, when implementing personnel measures such as transfer/relocation or redundancy dismissals, it is important to: (1) clearly establish objective business necessity (e.g., need for workforce reallocation, maintaining a fair work system); (2) take supplementary measures to mitigate personal hardship, such as payment of allowances or adjustment of work locations; and (3) keep records showing that there was sufficient communication and consultation with the employee throughout the process. The more these three elements are satisfied, the more likely the Labor Relations Commission is to view the personnel order as a legitimate exercise of managerial prerogative. Employers are therefore advised to review their personnel regulations and actual operational practices in advance.
(ⓒ2026 copyright. Labor Attorney Youngseop Moon, Labor Law Firm Law&.)
2. Matters Adjudicated
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Business Necessity
(1) The rotation system appears to be a reasonable scheme to manage personnel efficiently and fairly in the special work environment of an operating room;
(2) If an employee refuses, without just cause, to comply with the agreed rotation system, this may disrupt operating room staffing and undermine fairness within the organization;
(3) The employer cannot leave in the same department an employee who refuses to perform certain duties, and in particular, taking into account that the employee personally requested a transfer assignment, there was business necessity for the personnel transfer order.
B. Personal Hardship
(1) The transfer involved only movement between floors, so there was no disadvantage in terms of commuting;
(2) Special allowances and similar payments were additionally made, so there was no economic disadvantage;
(3) It is difficult to conclude that the personnel transfer was a measure that deprived the employee of his or her career or seriously undermined his or her professional expertise. Accordingly, it is hard to view the personal hardship as clearly exceeding the level that is normally tolerable.
C. Compliance with Consultation Procedures
The employer continuously communicated with the employee and made efforts to obtain his or her understanding, and therefore is deemed to have sufficiently fulfilled the duty to consult required under the principle of good faith.
3. Summary of Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
A. Business Necessity
(1) The rotation system appears to be a reasonable scheme to manage personnel efficiently and fairly in the special work environment of an operating room;
(2) If an employee refuses, without just cause, to comply with the agreed rotation system, this may disrupt operating room staffing and undermine fairness within the organization;
(3) The employer cannot leave in the same department an employee who refuses to perform certain duties, and in particular, taking into account that the employee personally requested a transfer assignment, there was business necessity for the personnel transfer order.
B. Personal Hardship
(1) The transfer involved only movement between floors, so there was no disadvantage in terms of commuting;
(2) Special allowances and similar payments were additionally made, so there was no economic disadvantage;
(3) It is difficult to conclude that the personnel transfer was a measure that deprived the employee of his or her career or seriously undermined his or her professional expertise. Accordingly, it is hard to view the personal hardship as clearly exceeding the level that is normally tolerable.
C. Compliance with Consultation Procedures
The employer continuously communicated with the employee and made efforts to obtain his or her understanding, and therefore is deemed to have sufficiently fulfilled the duty to consult required under the principle of good faith.
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Case on Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)”
- “Unfair Dismissal Case on Dismissal of Application (Non-Appearance at Hearing)” – Date of decision: – Case number: Dismissed
- “Unfair Dismissal Case on Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, transfer order (refusal of operating room rotation system), personnel order·transfer, violation of company policy·non-compliance with work instructions, 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 Labor Law Firm Law&’s “Unfair Dismissal Case Law” series.
※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Case on Existence of Dismissal·Written Notice (Alleged Agreed Resignation),” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to transfer orders (refusal of operating room rotation system) can be viewed together in the “List of Decisions Related to Transfer Orders (Refusal of Operating Room Rotation System).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
