Corporate trends / Performance record
‘Reassignment (Sales Group Reorganization)’ and Unfair Dismissal: Decision Summary (Unfair Dismissal 305)
- Date2026/03/22 04:04
- Read 206
This case concerns a decision in which the employer ultimately prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “reassignment (sales group reorganization).”
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which, on the issue of “reassignment (sales group reorganization),” the employer prevailed and the application was dismissed.
Decision body: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025BuHae9636 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.01.12 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issues:
A. Business necessity
The reassignment was carried out in the course of a reorganization of the company’s sales group. It was confirmed that, taking into comprehensive account the employee’s existing work performance and evaluation results, the employee was assigned to newly created duties in accordance with business needs within the company. This was viewed as a personnel measure intended to utilize the employee’s strengths and thus as an exercise of the employer’s managerial prerogative, so business necessity for the reassignment was recognized.
B. Disadvantage in living conditions
The employee’s previous position level as manager (gwajang) remained unchanged, and bonuses continued to be paid under the same sales league performance evaluation procedures. The discontinuation of vehicle and fuel allowances was merely a consequence of the employee no longer performing the team leader (part leader) role. The change in workplace was limited to a move to another floor within the head office. In light of these factors, it was held difficult to regard the disadvantage in living conditions caused by the reassignment as significantly exceeding the level that employees are ordinarily expected to endure under social norms.
---
1. Legal Implications
The issue in this case was whether a reassignment carried out in the course of a sales group reorganization constituted an abuse of rights to such an extent as to amount to unfair dismissal.
The panel in this case noted that the employer’s reassignment was implemented under the operational need of reorganizing the sales group, that the employee was assigned to newly created duties after comprehensively considering the employee’s existing work performance and evaluation results, and that the measure appeared to be a personnel action intended to utilize the employee’s strengths.
On that basis, the panel determined that business necessity for the reassignment in this case was established.
In addition, the panel took into account that the employee’s position level as manager remained the same as before, that bonuses continued to be paid under the same sales league performance evaluation procedures, that the discontinuation of vehicle and fuel allowances was merely due to non-performance of the team leader role, and that the change in workplace was limited to a move to another floor within the head office.
Accordingly, the panel found it difficult to view the disadvantage in living conditions caused by the reassignment as significantly departing from the level of disadvantage that employees are ordinarily expected to endure under social norms.
Furthermore, while there was some room to doubt whether a sufficiently sincere consultation process with the employee had been carried out in the course of the reassignment, the panel noted that the personnel order had been notified in advance by email and, in light of case law holding that the mere absence of consultation procedures in transfers or reassignments does not by itself constitute an abuse of rights, held as follows.
Even if procedural shortcomings in the reassignment were acknowledged, they did not amount to a serious defect rising to the level of a violation of Article 23 of the Labor Standards Act or an abuse of rights. Therefore, the reassignment did not constitute unfair dismissal.
The dismissal measure in this case was not found to be unfair by the Labor Relations Commission and can be summarized as having been evaluated as a measure within the scope of the employer’s legitimate exercise of managerial prerogative in personnel matters.
Ⅰ. Case Overview
The employee had been serving in a team leader (part leader) role within the sales organization. In the course of the company’s sales group reorganization, the employee received a personnel order reassigning him/her to newly constituted duties. After the reassignment, the employee’s position level remained unchanged; however, the vehicle and fuel allowances linked to the team leader role were no longer paid, and the workplace was changed to a different floor within the head office.
The employee filed an application with the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission for a remedy for unfair dismissal, arguing that this reassignment constituted a substantively disadvantageous transfer and amounted to unfair dismissal. The Labor Relations Commission dismissed the application.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case was whether a reassignment carried out under the pretext of a “sales group reorganization” could be regarded as unfair dismissal on the grounds that it exceeded business necessity and imposed excessive disadvantage in the employee’s living conditions, or that it constituted an abuse of rights due to non-compliance with consultation procedures.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The Labor Relations Commission recognized business necessity for the reassignment on the following grounds: first, the reassignment was based on an objective need for personnel redeployment arising from the sales group reorganization; second, in selecting personnel, the company comprehensively considered the employee’s existing work performance and evaluation results and assigned the employee to new duties within the company, thereby establishing the rationality of the selection; and third, the measure was a personnel action intended to utilize the employee’s strengths and enhance operational efficiency.
The Commission further held that the reassignment did not impose a level of disadvantage in living conditions that significantly exceeded what employees are ordinarily expected to endure, based on the following: first, the employee’s manager-level position and base pay, as well as the bonus calculation system, were maintained; second, the vehicle and fuel allowances were merely ancillary to the performance of the team leader role and were naturally adjusted in line with the change in duties; and third, the change in workplace was limited to a move between floors within the head office, resulting in no substantial change to commuting or living environment.
Finally, relying on Supreme Court precedents that regard sincere consultation with the employee in transfers or reassignments as only one factor in determining the legitimacy of the exercise of managerial prerogative—and that a lack of consultation alone does not immediately amount to an abuse of rights—the Commission held that, since there had been advance notice by email of the personnel order, the personnel measure could not be deemed invalid solely due to procedural shortcomings.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, it is important to understand that a reassignment or transfer is not automatically recognized as unfair dismissal. Business necessity, disadvantage in living conditions, and violations of consultation procedures are all considered comprehensively. If you wish to challenge a disadvantageous transfer, it is crucial to specifically prove that there has been “disadvantage in living conditions that significantly exceeds the ordinarily acceptable range,” such as a substantive reduction in wages or position level, difficulty in commuting, or serious mental or social disadvantage, rather than a mere change in duties or workplace.
In addition, because performance evaluations and work performance are often used as grounds for reassignment, you should systematically organize your evaluation results, the circumstances of any personnel disadvantages, and the company’s overall reorganization trends. When necessary, you should consult with experts—such as the Labor Relations Commission or Labor Law Firm Law&—to assess in advance the likelihood of success in an application for a remedy for unfair dismissal.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s side, in order for transfers and reassignments to be recognized as a legitimate exercise of managerial prerogative, it is advisable, first, to document the objective need and criteria for organizational restructuring and personnel redeployment. Second, when selecting affected employees, it is important to establish rational criteria—such as performance, evaluations, and job suitability—and to manage personnel records in a way that clearly shows there was no discriminatory or punitive intent.
Third, employers should seek to minimize disadvantage in living conditions by maintaining, as far as possible, the employee’s position level, base salary, and bonus structure. Where changes in workplace or adjustments to allowances are unavoidable, employers should secure a record of consultation and communication with the employee, including explanations of the reasons and any compensatory measures. With such preparation, it becomes more likely that the Labor Relations Commission will recognize the employer’s exercise of managerial prerogative as legitimate in disputes over unfair dismissal or unfair transfer.
2. Matters Determined
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Business Necessity
The reassignment was carried out in the course of the company’s sales group reorganization. It was confirmed that, taking into comprehensive account the employee’s existing work performance and evaluation results, the employee was assigned to newly created duties in accordance with business needs within the company. This was viewed as a personnel measure intended to utilize the employee’s strengths and thus as an exercise of the employer’s managerial prerogative, so business necessity for the reassignment was recognized.
B. Disadvantage in Living Conditions
The employee’s previous manager-level position was maintained, and bonuses continued to be paid under the same sales league performance evaluation procedures. The vehicle and fuel allowances were simply not paid because the employee was no longer performing the team leader role. The change in workplace was limited to a move to another floor within the head office. Accordingly, it was held difficult to regard the disadvantage in living conditions as exceeding the ordinarily acceptable level under social norms.
C. Compliance with Procedures Such as Sincere Consultation
There was insufficient evidence to conclude that a sufficiently sincere consultation process with the employee had been carried out in the course of the reassignment. However, it was confirmed that the personnel order had been notified in advance by email prior to the reassignment. Therefore, even if there were procedural shortcomings, they could not be regarded as unlawful to the extent of rendering the measure null and void.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Business Necessity
The reassignment was carried out in the course of the company’s sales group reorganization. It was confirmed that, taking into comprehensive account the employee’s existing work performance and evaluation results, the employee was assigned to newly created duties in accordance with business needs within the company. This was viewed as a personnel measure intended to utilize the employee’s strengths and thus as an exercise of the employer’s managerial prerogative, so business necessity for the reassignment was recognized.
B. Disadvantage in Living Conditions
The employee’s previous manager-level position was maintained, and bonuses continued to be paid under the same sales league performance evaluation procedures. The vehicle and fuel allowances were simply not paid because the employee was no longer performing the team leader role. The change in workplace was limited to a move to another floor within the head office. Accordingly, it was held difficult to regard the disadvantage in living conditions as exceeding the ordinarily acceptable level under social norms.
C. Compliance with Procedures Such as Sincere Consultation
There was insufficient evidence to conclude that a sufficiently sincere consultation process with the employee had been carried out in the course of the reassignment. However, it was confirmed that the personnel order had been notified in advance by email prior to the reassignment. Therefore, even if there were procedural shortcomings, they could not be regarded as unlawful to the extent of rendering the measure null and void.
[See More Related Decisions]
- ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision
- ‘Expression of Intention to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision
- ‘Dismissal of Application (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision – Date of Decision: – Case No.: Dismissed
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, reassignment (sales group reorganization), personnel orders·reassignment, performance evaluation·poor performance, 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 one of the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ You can view the previous article, “‘Existence of Dismissal (Resignation Recommendation Call in Food Service Business)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to reassignment (sales group reorganization) can be viewed together in the “Reassignment (Sales Group Reorganization) Related Decisions List.”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which, on the issue of “reassignment (sales group reorganization),” the employer prevailed and the application was dismissed.
Decision body: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025BuHae9636 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.01.12 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issues:
A. Business necessity
The reassignment was carried out in the course of a reorganization of the company’s sales group. It was confirmed that, taking into comprehensive account the employee’s existing work performance and evaluation results, the employee was assigned to newly created duties in accordance with business needs within the company. This was viewed as a personnel measure intended to utilize the employee’s strengths and thus as an exercise of the employer’s managerial prerogative, so business necessity for the reassignment was recognized.
B. Disadvantage in living conditions
The employee’s previous position level as manager (gwajang) remained unchanged, and bonuses continued to be paid under the same sales league performance evaluation procedures. The discontinuation of vehicle and fuel allowances was merely a consequence of the employee no longer performing the team leader (part leader) role. The change in workplace was limited to a move to another floor within the head office. In light of these factors, it was held difficult to regard the disadvantage in living conditions caused by the reassignment as significantly exceeding the level that employees are ordinarily expected to endure under social norms.
---
1. Legal Implications
The issue in this case was whether a reassignment carried out in the course of a sales group reorganization constituted an abuse of rights to such an extent as to amount to unfair dismissal.
The panel in this case noted that the employer’s reassignment was implemented under the operational need of reorganizing the sales group, that the employee was assigned to newly created duties after comprehensively considering the employee’s existing work performance and evaluation results, and that the measure appeared to be a personnel action intended to utilize the employee’s strengths.
On that basis, the panel determined that business necessity for the reassignment in this case was established.
In addition, the panel took into account that the employee’s position level as manager remained the same as before, that bonuses continued to be paid under the same sales league performance evaluation procedures, that the discontinuation of vehicle and fuel allowances was merely due to non-performance of the team leader role, and that the change in workplace was limited to a move to another floor within the head office.
Accordingly, the panel found it difficult to view the disadvantage in living conditions caused by the reassignment as significantly departing from the level of disadvantage that employees are ordinarily expected to endure under social norms.
Furthermore, while there was some room to doubt whether a sufficiently sincere consultation process with the employee had been carried out in the course of the reassignment, the panel noted that the personnel order had been notified in advance by email and, in light of case law holding that the mere absence of consultation procedures in transfers or reassignments does not by itself constitute an abuse of rights, held as follows.
Even if procedural shortcomings in the reassignment were acknowledged, they did not amount to a serious defect rising to the level of a violation of Article 23 of the Labor Standards Act or an abuse of rights. Therefore, the reassignment did not constitute unfair dismissal.
The dismissal measure in this case was not found to be unfair by the Labor Relations Commission and can be summarized as having been evaluated as a measure within the scope of the employer’s legitimate exercise of managerial prerogative in personnel matters.
Ⅰ. Case Overview
The employee had been serving in a team leader (part leader) role within the sales organization. In the course of the company’s sales group reorganization, the employee received a personnel order reassigning him/her to newly constituted duties. After the reassignment, the employee’s position level remained unchanged; however, the vehicle and fuel allowances linked to the team leader role were no longer paid, and the workplace was changed to a different floor within the head office.
The employee filed an application with the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission for a remedy for unfair dismissal, arguing that this reassignment constituted a substantively disadvantageous transfer and amounted to unfair dismissal. The Labor Relations Commission dismissed the application.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case was whether a reassignment carried out under the pretext of a “sales group reorganization” could be regarded as unfair dismissal on the grounds that it exceeded business necessity and imposed excessive disadvantage in the employee’s living conditions, or that it constituted an abuse of rights due to non-compliance with consultation procedures.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The Labor Relations Commission recognized business necessity for the reassignment on the following grounds: first, the reassignment was based on an objective need for personnel redeployment arising from the sales group reorganization; second, in selecting personnel, the company comprehensively considered the employee’s existing work performance and evaluation results and assigned the employee to new duties within the company, thereby establishing the rationality of the selection; and third, the measure was a personnel action intended to utilize the employee’s strengths and enhance operational efficiency.
The Commission further held that the reassignment did not impose a level of disadvantage in living conditions that significantly exceeded what employees are ordinarily expected to endure, based on the following: first, the employee’s manager-level position and base pay, as well as the bonus calculation system, were maintained; second, the vehicle and fuel allowances were merely ancillary to the performance of the team leader role and were naturally adjusted in line with the change in duties; and third, the change in workplace was limited to a move between floors within the head office, resulting in no substantial change to commuting or living environment.
Finally, relying on Supreme Court precedents that regard sincere consultation with the employee in transfers or reassignments as only one factor in determining the legitimacy of the exercise of managerial prerogative—and that a lack of consultation alone does not immediately amount to an abuse of rights—the Commission held that, since there had been advance notice by email of the personnel order, the personnel measure could not be deemed invalid solely due to procedural shortcomings.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, it is important to understand that a reassignment or transfer is not automatically recognized as unfair dismissal. Business necessity, disadvantage in living conditions, and violations of consultation procedures are all considered comprehensively. If you wish to challenge a disadvantageous transfer, it is crucial to specifically prove that there has been “disadvantage in living conditions that significantly exceeds the ordinarily acceptable range,” such as a substantive reduction in wages or position level, difficulty in commuting, or serious mental or social disadvantage, rather than a mere change in duties or workplace.
In addition, because performance evaluations and work performance are often used as grounds for reassignment, you should systematically organize your evaluation results, the circumstances of any personnel disadvantages, and the company’s overall reorganization trends. When necessary, you should consult with experts—such as the Labor Relations Commission or Labor Law Firm Law&—to assess in advance the likelihood of success in an application for a remedy for unfair dismissal.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s side, in order for transfers and reassignments to be recognized as a legitimate exercise of managerial prerogative, it is advisable, first, to document the objective need and criteria for organizational restructuring and personnel redeployment. Second, when selecting affected employees, it is important to establish rational criteria—such as performance, evaluations, and job suitability—and to manage personnel records in a way that clearly shows there was no discriminatory or punitive intent.
Third, employers should seek to minimize disadvantage in living conditions by maintaining, as far as possible, the employee’s position level, base salary, and bonus structure. Where changes in workplace or adjustments to allowances are unavoidable, employers should secure a record of consultation and communication with the employee, including explanations of the reasons and any compensatory measures. With such preparation, it becomes more likely that the Labor Relations Commission will recognize the employer’s exercise of managerial prerogative as legitimate in disputes over unfair dismissal or unfair transfer.
2. Matters Determined
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Business Necessity
The reassignment was carried out in the course of the company’s sales group reorganization. It was confirmed that, taking into comprehensive account the employee’s existing work performance and evaluation results, the employee was assigned to newly created duties in accordance with business needs within the company. This was viewed as a personnel measure intended to utilize the employee’s strengths and thus as an exercise of the employer’s managerial prerogative, so business necessity for the reassignment was recognized.
B. Disadvantage in Living Conditions
The employee’s previous manager-level position was maintained, and bonuses continued to be paid under the same sales league performance evaluation procedures. The vehicle and fuel allowances were simply not paid because the employee was no longer performing the team leader role. The change in workplace was limited to a move to another floor within the head office. Accordingly, it was held difficult to regard the disadvantage in living conditions as exceeding the ordinarily acceptable level under social norms.
C. Compliance with Procedures Such as Sincere Consultation
There was insufficient evidence to conclude that a sufficiently sincere consultation process with the employee had been carried out in the course of the reassignment. However, it was confirmed that the personnel order had been notified in advance by email prior to the reassignment. Therefore, even if there were procedural shortcomings, they could not be regarded as unlawful to the extent of rendering the measure null and void.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Business Necessity
The reassignment was carried out in the course of the company’s sales group reorganization. It was confirmed that, taking into comprehensive account the employee’s existing work performance and evaluation results, the employee was assigned to newly created duties in accordance with business needs within the company. This was viewed as a personnel measure intended to utilize the employee’s strengths and thus as an exercise of the employer’s managerial prerogative, so business necessity for the reassignment was recognized.
B. Disadvantage in Living Conditions
The employee’s previous manager-level position was maintained, and bonuses continued to be paid under the same sales league performance evaluation procedures. The vehicle and fuel allowances were simply not paid because the employee was no longer performing the team leader role. The change in workplace was limited to a move to another floor within the head office. Accordingly, it was held difficult to regard the disadvantage in living conditions as exceeding the ordinarily acceptable level under social norms.
C. Compliance with Procedures Such as Sincere Consultation
There was insufficient evidence to conclude that a sufficiently sincere consultation process with the employee had been carried out in the course of the reassignment. However, it was confirmed that the personnel order had been notified in advance by email prior to the reassignment. Therefore, even if there were procedural shortcomings, they could not be regarded as unlawful to the extent of rendering the measure null and void.
[See More Related Decisions]
- ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision
- ‘Expression of Intention to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision
- ‘Dismissal of Application (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision – Date of Decision: – Case No.: Dismissed
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, reassignment (sales group reorganization), personnel orders·reassignment, performance evaluation·poor performance, 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 one of the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ You can view the previous article, “‘Existence of Dismissal (Resignation Recommendation Call in Food Service Business)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to reassignment (sales group reorganization) can be viewed together in the “Reassignment (Sales Group Reorganization) Related Decisions List.”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
