Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Case on Transfer and Removal from Position (Disbandment of K-POP Dance TF) (Unfair Dismissal 474)
- Date2026/05/23 04:08
- Read 83
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “transfer and removal from position (disbandment of K-POP Dance TF).”
Decision Committee: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026UnfairDismissal78 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.03.20 · Case Result: Dismissed
Summary of Key Issues:
A. Existence of business necessity
① In light of the need for new personnel appointments following the disbandment of the K-POP Dance TF group, and the need to separate the worker from the employee who had reported workplace harassment during the personnel appointment process, there appears to have been a necessity to remove the worker from the team leader position and assign him to another department.
② The removal from the team leader position appears to have been a necessary measure in the course of organizational restructuring or transfer to another department.
Taking these points together, the Commission found that there was business necessity for the removal of the worker from the team leader position and his transfer to another department…
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Overview of the Case
In this case, a museum employee who had been serving as team leader of the K-POP Dance TF group had his team leader position removed when the TF was disbanded and was then transferred to another department. He applied to the Labor Relations Commission for relief, claiming that this constituted an unfair personnel measure equivalent to unfair dismissal.
The Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission conducted a comprehensive review of whether there was business necessity for the employer’s exercise of its personnel authority, whether the worker suffered excessive disadvantages in his personal life, and whether the employer violated the consultation procedures required under the principle of good faith. The Commission ultimately dismissed the worker’s application. In doing so, it faithfully applied the Supreme Court’s established criteria for determining the legitimacy of transfers and removals from position.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether, in a situation where the K-POP Dance TF group was disbanded and there was a need to separate the worker from the employee who had reported workplace harassment, the removal of the worker from the team leader position and his transfer to another department constituted a legitimate exercise of personnel authority in terms of business necessity, disadvantages in personal life, and consultation procedures, or whether it amounted to an abuse of rights equivalent to unfair dismissal.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The decision panel in this case found that: the K-POP Dance TF group had been officially disbanded, creating a need for new personnel reallocation; there were circumstances relating to organizational order and harmony, namely the need to separate the worker from the employee who had reported workplace harassment; and the removal from the team leader position appeared to be a measure that is ordinarily accompanied by organizational restructuring and transfers. In light of these factors, the Commission held that there was objective business necessity for the removal of the worker from the team leader position and the personnel appointment.
The worker’s rank, pay step, and remuneration did not change; the qualification requirements for obtaining the Grade 2 Curator license did not require continued employment at the museum, making it difficult to recognize any loss in terms of qualification acquisition due to the personnel appointment; and the disadvantages in the worker’s personal life caused by the transfer did not appear to significantly exceed the range that an ordinary worker would be expected to endure. Taking these points into account, the Commission found it difficult to conclude that the removal from position and the personnel appointment caused excessive disadvantages in the worker’s personal life.
In addition, the representative director had informed the worker of the planned removal from position and personnel appointment through a meeting; in the absence of explicit rules on consultation procedures, the mere fact that sincere consultation may have been somewhat lacking does not immediately render the measures an abuse of rights; and Supreme Court precedents require that business necessity, disadvantages in personal life, and consultation procedures be comprehensively weighed when determining the legitimacy of transfers and changes in duties. Considering all of these factors, the Commission held that the removal from position and personnel appointment in this case did not constitute an abuse of rights contrary to the principle of good faith, and therefore could not be regarded as an unfair personnel measure equivalent to unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective)
From the worker’s standpoint, even if a transfer or removal from position is unwelcome, it is important to note that the Labor Relations Commission will not easily recognize such measures as unfair dismissal or unfair personnel action solely because job duties or departments have changed.
In particular, where rank and wages are maintained, there is no substantial loss in terms of qualification acquisition or career management, and the employer’s need for organizational restructuring and personnel reallocation is objectively apparent, the key is to prove with concrete evidence that the disadvantages in personal life exceeded the “range ordinarily to be endured.”
Furthermore, where separation measures related to a workplace harassment report form the background of a transfer or removal from position, a key issue may be whether the measure is retaliatory or instead based on an objective need to resolve actual conflict and maintain organizational order. It is therefore advisable to carefully organize the circumstances of the harassment, the company’s investigation and response process, and comparisons with other personnel cases.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, in order to prevent personnel orders such as transfers and removals from position from being perceived as unfair dismissal, it is important, first, to retain objective records demonstrating “business necessity,” such as organizational restructuring, TF disbandment, or separation measures in response to workplace harassment.
Second, it is necessary to review and implement measures to mitigate disadvantages in personal life, such as ensuring that rank, pay step, and remuneration are maintained after the transfer, that there is no substantial loss in qualification acquisition or career management, and that commuting conditions and work difficulty are reasonably managed.
Third, even in the absence of explicit provisions on consultation procedures, if the employer at least provides prior explanations and holds meetings to inform the employee of the reasons and direction of the personnel move and keeps records of having heard the employee’s views, it can persuasively argue before the Labor Relations Commission that it has satisfied the procedural requirements under the principle of good faith. Establishing these basic principles will be of great help in defending the legitimacy of the exercise of personnel authority in future, more serious personnel measures such as collective redundancies or placement on standby.
This decision by the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission clearly illustrates how important it is, in unfair dismissal disputes involving transfers and removals from position, to thoroughly organize and contrast the three elements of “business necessity – disadvantages in personal life – consultation procedures” in accordance with Supreme Court standards. Both workers and employers are advised, when similar disputes are anticipated, to consult from an early stage with a specialized institution such as Labor Law Firm Law& to systematically organize the relevant facts and evidence.
2. Matters Decided
A. Overview of the Case and Procedural History
A. Existence of Business Necessity
① In light of the need for new personnel appointments following the disbandment of the K-POP Dance TF group, and the need to separate the worker from the employee who had reported workplace harassment during the personnel appointment process, there appears to have been a necessity to remove the worker from the team leader position and assign him to another department.
② The removal from the team leader position appears to have been a necessary measure in the course of organizational restructuring or transfer to another department.
Taking these points together, business necessity is recognized for the removal of the worker from the team leader position and the personnel appointment.
B. Disadvantages in Personal Life
① The worker’s rank, pay step, and remuneration did not change.
② The qualification requirements for obtaining the Grade 2 Curator license do not require continued employment at the museum, making it difficult to conclude that the worker suffered loss due to the personnel appointment.
In light of these points, the disadvantages in personal life cannot be regarded as significant compared to the business necessity of the removal from position and personnel appointment.
C. Compliance with Consultation Procedures Required Under the Principle of Good Faith
The representative director informed the worker during a meeting that the removal from position and personnel appointment were planned, and it is difficult to regard the removal from position and personnel appointment as an abuse of rights that is automatically null and void solely on the ground that a sincere consultation procedure was not followed.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Existence of Business Necessity
① In light of the need for new personnel appointments following the disbandment of the K-POP Dance TF group, and the need to separate the worker from the employee who had reported workplace harassment during the personnel appointment process, there appears to have been a necessity to remove the worker from the team leader position and assign him to another department.
② The removal from the team leader position appears to have been a necessary measure in the course of organizational restructuring or transfer to another department.
Taking these points together, business necessity is recognized for the removal of the worker from the team leader position and the personnel appointment.
B. Disadvantages in Personal Life
① The worker’s rank, pay step, and remuneration did not change.
② The qualification requirements for obtaining the Grade 2 Curator license do not require continued employment at the museum, making it difficult to conclude that the worker suffered loss due to the personnel appointment.
In light of these points, the disadvantages in personal life cannot be regarded as significant compared to the business necessity of the removal from position and personnel appointment.
C. Compliance with Consultation Procedures Required Under the Principle of Good Faith
The representative director informed the worker during a meeting that the removal from position and personnel appointment were planned, and it is difficult to regard the removal from position and personnel appointment as an abuse of rights that is automatically null and void solely on the ground that a sincere consultation procedure was not followed.
/
[See More Related Decisions]
- ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision on Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’
- ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision on “Dismissal of Application (Non-Appearance at Hearing)”’ – Date of Decision: – Case Number: Dismissed
- ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision on “Expectation of Renewal (Security and Cleaning Service Provider)”’
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, transfer and removal from position (disbandment of K-POP Dance TF), performance evaluation and poor performance, workplace harassment, 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 Expectation of Renewal (Security and Cleaning Service Provider)’,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to transfer and removal from position (disbandment of K-POP Dance TF) can be viewed together at “List of Decisions Related to Transfer and Removal from Position (Disbandment of K-POP Dance TF).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “transfer and removal from position (disbandment of K-POP Dance TF).”
Decision Committee: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026UnfairDismissal78 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.03.20 · Case Result: Dismissed
Summary of Key Issues:
A. Existence of business necessity
① In light of the need for new personnel appointments following the disbandment of the K-POP Dance TF group, and the need to separate the worker from the employee who had reported workplace harassment during the personnel appointment process, there appears to have been a necessity to remove the worker from the team leader position and assign him to another department.
② The removal from the team leader position appears to have been a necessary measure in the course of organizational restructuring or transfer to another department.
Taking these points together, the Commission found that there was business necessity for the removal of the worker from the team leader position and his transfer to another department…
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Overview of the Case
In this case, a museum employee who had been serving as team leader of the K-POP Dance TF group had his team leader position removed when the TF was disbanded and was then transferred to another department. He applied to the Labor Relations Commission for relief, claiming that this constituted an unfair personnel measure equivalent to unfair dismissal.
The Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission conducted a comprehensive review of whether there was business necessity for the employer’s exercise of its personnel authority, whether the worker suffered excessive disadvantages in his personal life, and whether the employer violated the consultation procedures required under the principle of good faith. The Commission ultimately dismissed the worker’s application. In doing so, it faithfully applied the Supreme Court’s established criteria for determining the legitimacy of transfers and removals from position.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether, in a situation where the K-POP Dance TF group was disbanded and there was a need to separate the worker from the employee who had reported workplace harassment, the removal of the worker from the team leader position and his transfer to another department constituted a legitimate exercise of personnel authority in terms of business necessity, disadvantages in personal life, and consultation procedures, or whether it amounted to an abuse of rights equivalent to unfair dismissal.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The decision panel in this case found that: the K-POP Dance TF group had been officially disbanded, creating a need for new personnel reallocation; there were circumstances relating to organizational order and harmony, namely the need to separate the worker from the employee who had reported workplace harassment; and the removal from the team leader position appeared to be a measure that is ordinarily accompanied by organizational restructuring and transfers. In light of these factors, the Commission held that there was objective business necessity for the removal of the worker from the team leader position and the personnel appointment.
The worker’s rank, pay step, and remuneration did not change; the qualification requirements for obtaining the Grade 2 Curator license did not require continued employment at the museum, making it difficult to recognize any loss in terms of qualification acquisition due to the personnel appointment; and the disadvantages in the worker’s personal life caused by the transfer did not appear to significantly exceed the range that an ordinary worker would be expected to endure. Taking these points into account, the Commission found it difficult to conclude that the removal from position and the personnel appointment caused excessive disadvantages in the worker’s personal life.
In addition, the representative director had informed the worker of the planned removal from position and personnel appointment through a meeting; in the absence of explicit rules on consultation procedures, the mere fact that sincere consultation may have been somewhat lacking does not immediately render the measures an abuse of rights; and Supreme Court precedents require that business necessity, disadvantages in personal life, and consultation procedures be comprehensively weighed when determining the legitimacy of transfers and changes in duties. Considering all of these factors, the Commission held that the removal from position and personnel appointment in this case did not constitute an abuse of rights contrary to the principle of good faith, and therefore could not be regarded as an unfair personnel measure equivalent to unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective)
From the worker’s standpoint, even if a transfer or removal from position is unwelcome, it is important to note that the Labor Relations Commission will not easily recognize such measures as unfair dismissal or unfair personnel action solely because job duties or departments have changed.
In particular, where rank and wages are maintained, there is no substantial loss in terms of qualification acquisition or career management, and the employer’s need for organizational restructuring and personnel reallocation is objectively apparent, the key is to prove with concrete evidence that the disadvantages in personal life exceeded the “range ordinarily to be endured.”
Furthermore, where separation measures related to a workplace harassment report form the background of a transfer or removal from position, a key issue may be whether the measure is retaliatory or instead based on an objective need to resolve actual conflict and maintain organizational order. It is therefore advisable to carefully organize the circumstances of the harassment, the company’s investigation and response process, and comparisons with other personnel cases.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, in order to prevent personnel orders such as transfers and removals from position from being perceived as unfair dismissal, it is important, first, to retain objective records demonstrating “business necessity,” such as organizational restructuring, TF disbandment, or separation measures in response to workplace harassment.
Second, it is necessary to review and implement measures to mitigate disadvantages in personal life, such as ensuring that rank, pay step, and remuneration are maintained after the transfer, that there is no substantial loss in qualification acquisition or career management, and that commuting conditions and work difficulty are reasonably managed.
Third, even in the absence of explicit provisions on consultation procedures, if the employer at least provides prior explanations and holds meetings to inform the employee of the reasons and direction of the personnel move and keeps records of having heard the employee’s views, it can persuasively argue before the Labor Relations Commission that it has satisfied the procedural requirements under the principle of good faith. Establishing these basic principles will be of great help in defending the legitimacy of the exercise of personnel authority in future, more serious personnel measures such as collective redundancies or placement on standby.
This decision by the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission clearly illustrates how important it is, in unfair dismissal disputes involving transfers and removals from position, to thoroughly organize and contrast the three elements of “business necessity – disadvantages in personal life – consultation procedures” in accordance with Supreme Court standards. Both workers and employers are advised, when similar disputes are anticipated, to consult from an early stage with a specialized institution such as Labor Law Firm Law& to systematically organize the relevant facts and evidence.
2. Matters Decided
A. Overview of the Case and Procedural History
A. Existence of Business Necessity
① In light of the need for new personnel appointments following the disbandment of the K-POP Dance TF group, and the need to separate the worker from the employee who had reported workplace harassment during the personnel appointment process, there appears to have been a necessity to remove the worker from the team leader position and assign him to another department.
② The removal from the team leader position appears to have been a necessary measure in the course of organizational restructuring or transfer to another department.
Taking these points together, business necessity is recognized for the removal of the worker from the team leader position and the personnel appointment.
B. Disadvantages in Personal Life
① The worker’s rank, pay step, and remuneration did not change.
② The qualification requirements for obtaining the Grade 2 Curator license do not require continued employment at the museum, making it difficult to conclude that the worker suffered loss due to the personnel appointment.
In light of these points, the disadvantages in personal life cannot be regarded as significant compared to the business necessity of the removal from position and personnel appointment.
C. Compliance with Consultation Procedures Required Under the Principle of Good Faith
The representative director informed the worker during a meeting that the removal from position and personnel appointment were planned, and it is difficult to regard the removal from position and personnel appointment as an abuse of rights that is automatically null and void solely on the ground that a sincere consultation procedure was not followed.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Existence of Business Necessity
① In light of the need for new personnel appointments following the disbandment of the K-POP Dance TF group, and the need to separate the worker from the employee who had reported workplace harassment during the personnel appointment process, there appears to have been a necessity to remove the worker from the team leader position and assign him to another department.
② The removal from the team leader position appears to have been a necessary measure in the course of organizational restructuring or transfer to another department.
Taking these points together, business necessity is recognized for the removal of the worker from the team leader position and the personnel appointment.
B. Disadvantages in Personal Life
① The worker’s rank, pay step, and remuneration did not change.
② The qualification requirements for obtaining the Grade 2 Curator license do not require continued employment at the museum, making it difficult to conclude that the worker suffered loss due to the personnel appointment.
In light of these points, the disadvantages in personal life cannot be regarded as significant compared to the business necessity of the removal from position and personnel appointment.
C. Compliance with Consultation Procedures Required Under the Principle of Good Faith
The representative director informed the worker during a meeting that the removal from position and personnel appointment were planned, and it is difficult to regard the removal from position and personnel appointment as an abuse of rights that is automatically null and void solely on the ground that a sincere consultation procedure was not followed.
/
[See More Related Decisions]
- ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision on Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’
- ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision on “Dismissal of Application (Non-Appearance at Hearing)”’ – Date of Decision: – Case Number: Dismissed
- ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision on “Expectation of Renewal (Security and Cleaning Service Provider)”’
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, transfer and removal from position (disbandment of K-POP Dance TF), performance evaluation and poor performance, workplace harassment, 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 Expectation of Renewal (Security and Cleaning Service Provider)’,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to transfer and removal from position (disbandment of K-POP Dance TF) can be viewed together at “List of Decisions Related to Transfer and Removal from Position (Disbandment of K-POP Dance TF).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
