Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning a Transfer Order (Difficulty in Childcare) (Unfair Dismissal 433)
- Date2026/05/06 04:13
- Read 119
This case note concerns a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of a “transfer order (difficulty in childcare).”
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of a “transfer order (difficulty in childcare).”
Decision-making body: Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission, 2026Buhae46 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.03.30 · Case outcome: Dismissed
Summary of key issues:
A. Existence of business necessity for the personnel transfer
The various regulations of the National Federation of Fisheries Cooperatives (Suhyup) stipulate job rotation as a principle, and regular personnel changes have in fact been carried out every year in accordance with those regulations. Given that the employee, unlike other employees, had no prior work history in other regions, designating the employee as a subject of transfer was found to be supported by business necessity.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, Suhyup, applying its principle of job rotation, issued a transfer order assigning the employee to a different region. The employee filed for relief with the Labor Relations Commission, asserting that the transfer order constituted an unfair personnel measure equivalent to unfair dismissal, on the grounds of living disadvantages and the absence of a consultation process.
The Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission focused on (i) whether there was business necessity for the personnel transfer, (ii) the degree of living disadvantages to the employee, and (iii) whether there existed any obligation to consult prior to the transfer, in order to determine whether this transfer order fell within the proper scope of the employer’s managerial prerogative.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is:
“In a transfer order based on job rotation rules, where the employee has personal circumstances such as difficulty in childcare, but the employer issues the personnel order without any consultation process, does the transfer constitute an abuse of managerial prerogative in violation of Article 23(1) of the Labor Standards Act?”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel noted that Suhyup’s personnel regulations contain provisions establishing job rotation as a principle and that, in practice, rotational assignments have been implemented every year through regular personnel changes; that it was reasonable to select the employee as a subject of transfer because, compared with other employees, the employee had no prior work history in other regions; that no objective economic disadvantage, such as a change in wages, was identified as a result of the personnel transfer; and that the difficulty in childcare falls within the employee’s subjective and family-related circumstances and cannot readily be regarded as significantly exceeding the range of disadvantages that, under social norms, an employee is ordinarily expected to bear.
In light of the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence, which holds that, absent a provision expressly imposing an obligation to consult with the employee prior to a personnel transfer, the mere absence of a consultation process does not, by itself, render the personnel transfer invalid (i.e., in assessing the legitimacy of a transfer or placement on standby, “consultation” is only one of several factors and is not an absolute requirement),
the Commission held that the personnel transfer in this case was supported by business necessity and that the living disadvantages did not significantly exceed the range ordinarily to be borne under social norms. Accordingly, it could not be viewed as an unfair personnel measure constituting an abuse of rights.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Employees should understand that a transfer or job rotation does not automatically amount to unfair dismissal or unfair transfer. For a personnel order to be invalid, it must be shown that there was no business necessity, that the living disadvantages significantly exceeded the level ordinarily tolerable under social norms, or that there were circumstances indicating an abuse of rights, such as targeting a specific employee.
In particular, circumstances such as childcare, care for parents, and the employee’s own health may be taken into account in assessing living disadvantages. However, unless the employee can specifically substantiate, with objective materials (such as medical certificates, family situation, changes in commuting time and costs, etc.), that the disadvantages are “significantly excessive,” it will be difficult for such arguments to be accepted by the Labor Relations Commission.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, for transfers and job rotations to be recognized as falling within the proper scope of managerial prerogative, it is important, first, to clearly stipulate the principle and criteria of job rotation in personnel regulations and rules of employment, and to apply them consistently in actual practice.
Second, keeping written records of other employees’ work histories within the same or similar job groups, staffing needs, and criteria for selecting personnel will be very helpful in later proving “business necessity and the reasonableness of personnel selection” before the Labor Relations Commission. In addition, even where there is no explicit obligation to consult, it is advantageous, for preventing disputes over abuse of rights, to conduct prior interviews where possible to hear the employee’s personal circumstances, make efforts to adjust, and keep records of such efforts.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Existence of business necessity for the personnel transfer
Suhyup’s various regulations stipulate job rotation as a principle, and regular personnel changes have been carried out every year in accordance with those regulations. Given that, compared with other employees, the employee had no prior work history in other regions, selecting the employee as a subject of the personnel transfer is recognized as supported by business necessity.
B. Existence of living disadvantages
No economic disadvantage, such as a change in wages, was identified as a result of the personnel transfer. The difficulty in childcare arises from the employee’s subjective circumstances, and, when weighed against the business necessity, it is difficult to view the disadvantage as significantly exceeding the level acceptable under social norms.
C. Compliance with a good-faith consultation process with the employee
Since there is no provision imposing an obligation to consult with the employee prior to a personnel transfer, the absence of a consultation process does not render the personnel transfer invalid.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Existence of business necessity for the personnel transfer
Suhyup’s various regulations stipulate job rotation as a principle, and regular personnel changes have been carried out every year in accordance with those regulations. Given that, compared with other employees, the employee had no prior work history in other regions, selecting the employee as a subject of the personnel transfer is recognized as supported by business necessity.
B. Existence of living disadvantages
No economic disadvantage, such as a change in wages, was identified as a result of the personnel transfer. The difficulty in childcare arises from the employee’s subjective circumstances, and, when weighed against the business necessity, it is difficult to view the disadvantage as significantly exceeding the level acceptable under social norms.
C. Compliance with a good-faith consultation process with the employee
Since there is no provision imposing an obligation to consult with the employee prior to a personnel transfer, the absence of a consultation process does not render the personnel transfer invalid. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning Proof of Existence of Dismissal (Written Notice · Not a Redundancy Dismissal)”
- “Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning Non-fulfillment of Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)”
- “Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning Existence of Dismissal (Statement by Hospital Administrative Director)”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, transfer order (difficulty in childcare), 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 Labor Law Firm Law&’s “Unfair Dismissal Case Law” series.
※ The previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning Existence of Dismissal (Statement by Hospital Administrative Director),” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to transfer orders (difficulty in childcare) can be viewed together in the “List of Decisions Related to Transfer Orders (Difficulty in Childcare).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of a “transfer order (difficulty in childcare).”
Decision-making body: Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission, 2026Buhae46 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.03.30 · Case outcome: Dismissed
Summary of key issues:
A. Existence of business necessity for the personnel transfer
The various regulations of the National Federation of Fisheries Cooperatives (Suhyup) stipulate job rotation as a principle, and regular personnel changes have in fact been carried out every year in accordance with those regulations. Given that the employee, unlike other employees, had no prior work history in other regions, designating the employee as a subject of transfer was found to be supported by business necessity.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, Suhyup, applying its principle of job rotation, issued a transfer order assigning the employee to a different region. The employee filed for relief with the Labor Relations Commission, asserting that the transfer order constituted an unfair personnel measure equivalent to unfair dismissal, on the grounds of living disadvantages and the absence of a consultation process.
The Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission focused on (i) whether there was business necessity for the personnel transfer, (ii) the degree of living disadvantages to the employee, and (iii) whether there existed any obligation to consult prior to the transfer, in order to determine whether this transfer order fell within the proper scope of the employer’s managerial prerogative.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is:
“In a transfer order based on job rotation rules, where the employee has personal circumstances such as difficulty in childcare, but the employer issues the personnel order without any consultation process, does the transfer constitute an abuse of managerial prerogative in violation of Article 23(1) of the Labor Standards Act?”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel noted that Suhyup’s personnel regulations contain provisions establishing job rotation as a principle and that, in practice, rotational assignments have been implemented every year through regular personnel changes; that it was reasonable to select the employee as a subject of transfer because, compared with other employees, the employee had no prior work history in other regions; that no objective economic disadvantage, such as a change in wages, was identified as a result of the personnel transfer; and that the difficulty in childcare falls within the employee’s subjective and family-related circumstances and cannot readily be regarded as significantly exceeding the range of disadvantages that, under social norms, an employee is ordinarily expected to bear.
In light of the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence, which holds that, absent a provision expressly imposing an obligation to consult with the employee prior to a personnel transfer, the mere absence of a consultation process does not, by itself, render the personnel transfer invalid (i.e., in assessing the legitimacy of a transfer or placement on standby, “consultation” is only one of several factors and is not an absolute requirement),
the Commission held that the personnel transfer in this case was supported by business necessity and that the living disadvantages did not significantly exceed the range ordinarily to be borne under social norms. Accordingly, it could not be viewed as an unfair personnel measure constituting an abuse of rights.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Employees should understand that a transfer or job rotation does not automatically amount to unfair dismissal or unfair transfer. For a personnel order to be invalid, it must be shown that there was no business necessity, that the living disadvantages significantly exceeded the level ordinarily tolerable under social norms, or that there were circumstances indicating an abuse of rights, such as targeting a specific employee.
In particular, circumstances such as childcare, care for parents, and the employee’s own health may be taken into account in assessing living disadvantages. However, unless the employee can specifically substantiate, with objective materials (such as medical certificates, family situation, changes in commuting time and costs, etc.), that the disadvantages are “significantly excessive,” it will be difficult for such arguments to be accepted by the Labor Relations Commission.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, for transfers and job rotations to be recognized as falling within the proper scope of managerial prerogative, it is important, first, to clearly stipulate the principle and criteria of job rotation in personnel regulations and rules of employment, and to apply them consistently in actual practice.
Second, keeping written records of other employees’ work histories within the same or similar job groups, staffing needs, and criteria for selecting personnel will be very helpful in later proving “business necessity and the reasonableness of personnel selection” before the Labor Relations Commission. In addition, even where there is no explicit obligation to consult, it is advantageous, for preventing disputes over abuse of rights, to conduct prior interviews where possible to hear the employee’s personal circumstances, make efforts to adjust, and keep records of such efforts.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Existence of business necessity for the personnel transfer
Suhyup’s various regulations stipulate job rotation as a principle, and regular personnel changes have been carried out every year in accordance with those regulations. Given that, compared with other employees, the employee had no prior work history in other regions, selecting the employee as a subject of the personnel transfer is recognized as supported by business necessity.
B. Existence of living disadvantages
No economic disadvantage, such as a change in wages, was identified as a result of the personnel transfer. The difficulty in childcare arises from the employee’s subjective circumstances, and, when weighed against the business necessity, it is difficult to view the disadvantage as significantly exceeding the level acceptable under social norms.
C. Compliance with a good-faith consultation process with the employee
Since there is no provision imposing an obligation to consult with the employee prior to a personnel transfer, the absence of a consultation process does not render the personnel transfer invalid.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Existence of business necessity for the personnel transfer
Suhyup’s various regulations stipulate job rotation as a principle, and regular personnel changes have been carried out every year in accordance with those regulations. Given that, compared with other employees, the employee had no prior work history in other regions, selecting the employee as a subject of the personnel transfer is recognized as supported by business necessity.
B. Existence of living disadvantages
No economic disadvantage, such as a change in wages, was identified as a result of the personnel transfer. The difficulty in childcare arises from the employee’s subjective circumstances, and, when weighed against the business necessity, it is difficult to view the disadvantage as significantly exceeding the level acceptable under social norms.
C. Compliance with a good-faith consultation process with the employee
Since there is no provision imposing an obligation to consult with the employee prior to a personnel transfer, the absence of a consultation process does not render the personnel transfer invalid. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning Proof of Existence of Dismissal (Written Notice · Not a Redundancy Dismissal)”
- “Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning Non-fulfillment of Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)”
- “Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning Existence of Dismissal (Statement by Hospital Administrative Director)”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, transfer order (difficulty in childcare), 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 Labor Law Firm Law&’s “Unfair Dismissal Case Law” series.
※ The previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning Existence of Dismissal (Statement by Hospital Administrative Director),” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to transfer orders (difficulty in childcare) can be viewed together in the “List of Decisions Related to Transfer Orders (Difficulty in Childcare).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
