Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Decision on “Legitimacy of Job Transfer (On-Site Assignment of a Legal Affairs Employee Who Passed the Bar Exam)” (Unfair Dismissal 91)
- Date2026/01/12 10:06
- Read 209
[Case Information]
- Case Name: Unfair Dismissal Decision on “Legitimacy of Job Transfer (On-Site Assignment of a Legal Affairs Employee Who Passed the Bar Exam)”
- Date of Decision:
- Case Number: Dismissed
- Adjudicating Body: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025BuHae3890 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2025.11.19
- Summary of Outcome: (a)
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This case concerns a labor commission proceeding in which the issues were whether there had been an unfair dismissal and an unfair personnel measure, where an employee who had been performing legal affairs at the head office was first placed on standby (daegi-balryeong) and then transferred to a construction site as a safety monitor. The employee argued that the transfer was unjustified in light of his/her experience of having passed the bar exam and prior legal affairs duties, while the employer asserted the legitimacy of its exercise of managerial prerogative based on business necessity and a shortage of safety management personnel at construction sites.
Ⅱ. Issues
The issues in this case are: in a situation where a transfer order was issued following a standby order, (i) whether there exists any separate remedial interest in relation to the standby order itself, and (ii) whether the measure of transferring a head-office legal affairs employee to a construction-site safety monitor position constitutes a legitimate exercise of the employer’s personnel authority.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Commission’s Reasoning
The panel held that the standby order was rendered moot by the subsequent transfer order issued on 4 September 2025, and that there was no remedial interest in relation to the standby period because the employee received full wages during that period and no separate legal disadvantage such as restrictions on promotion or pay grade advancement remained.
The panel further found: that, in light of the company’s deteriorating performance and the shortage of safety management personnel at construction sites, there was a recognized need to reassign head-office personnel to the sites; that, considering the results of the competency evaluation within the department, there was business necessity for assigning the employee to the safety monitor position; that there was no wage reduction due to the transfer, and disadvantages in terms of career management or changes in lifestyle patterns are difficult to regard as legal disadvantages, so that the level of inconvenience in daily life was within the range ordinarily to be borne; and that the employee, being on standby, could have anticipated a subsequent personnel order and the employer had been reviewing possible assignments to other departments even before the standby order. In view of these circumstances, the panel determined that the transfer in this case fell within the scope of a legitimate personnel order.
The dismissal disposition in this case was held to be unfair.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, where a transfer follows a standby order, it is important to note that the key to determining the existence of remedial interest at the standby stage is whether there remain any specific legal disadvantages in terms of wages, promotion, or career. In addition, to assert that a transfer is unjust, mere dissatisfaction with the content of the work or changes in lifestyle patterns is insufficient. The employee should prepare evidence that concretely demonstrates factors such as wage reduction, objective disadvantages in promotion or career, and the absence of business necessity for the transfer.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, even where the situation does not escalate to collective redundancies, in cases of transfers or standby orders accompanied by business necessity such as deteriorating performance or the need for personnel redeployment, it is important to retain objective documentation of such necessity and of the criteria for assignment. In particular, as this case illustrates, if documents are prepared setting out the competency evaluation results, the personnel supply-and-demand situation, the details of wage and treatment maintenance after the transfer, and the personnel review process before and after the standby order, the likelihood that the labor commission will recognize the legitimacy of the employer’s personnel authority increases.
To prevail in this type of case, it is crucial to accurately understand the balancing criteria applied by the labor commission and the courts between “business necessity” and “disadvantages in daily life,” and to structure and organize the facts in line with those criteria, in consultation with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&.
2. Matters Adjudicated
a. Case Overview and Procedural History
a. Whether the Standby Order Entails Remedial Interest
The standby order was rendered moot by the subsequent transfer on 4 September 2025, and as full wages were paid during the standby period and there was no legal disadvantage, it was determined that there was no remedial interest.
b. Legitimacy of the Transfer
Although the employee argued that he/she had passed the bar exam and had mainly handled legal affairs at the company, in light of the company’s deteriorating performance and the shortage of safety management personnel at construction sites, there was a need to reassign head-office personnel to the sites. Considering the results of the competency evaluation within the department, there was business necessity for assigning the employee to the site safety monitor position. There was no wage reduction due to the transfer, and disadvantages in terms of career management or changes in lifestyle patterns do not constitute legal disadvantages, so the disadvantages in daily life were at a level that could be borne. The employee, being on standby, could have anticipated a subsequent personnel order, and the employer had been reviewing possible assignments to other departments even before the standby order. In light of these factors, it is difficult to view the consultation procedure as having such a serious defect as to render it null and void.
3. Summary of Decision
a. Summary of the Labor Commission’s Reasoning
a. Whether the Standby Order Entails Remedial Interest
The standby order was rendered moot by the subsequent transfer on 4 September 2025, and as full wages were paid during the standby period and there was no legal disadvantage, it was determined that there was no remedial interest.
b. Legitimacy of the Transfer
Although the employee argued that he/she had passed the bar exam and had mainly handled legal affairs at the company, in light of the company’s deteriorating performance and the shortage of safety management personnel at construction sites, there was a need to reassign head-office personnel to the sites. Considering the results of the competency evaluation within the department, there was business necessity for assigning the employee to the site safety monitor position. There was no wage reduction due to the transfer, and disadvantages in terms of career management or changes in lifestyle patterns do not constitute legal disadvantages, so the disadvantages in daily life were at a level that could be borne. The employee, being on standby, could have anticipated a subsequent personnel order, and the employer had been reviewing possible assignments to other departments even before the standby order. In light of these factors, it is difficult to view the consultation procedure as having such a serious defect as to render 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 ‘Existence of Dismissal (Reinstatement to Original Position · Letter of Waiver of Reinstatement)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark Made by Telephone)’”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, legitimacy of job transfer (on-site assignment of a legal affairs employee who passed the bar exam), personnel orders · transfer, personnel 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 part of the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Existence of Dismissal (Reinstatement to Original Position · Letter of Waiver of Reinstatement)’,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to legitimacy of job transfer (on-site assignment of a legal affairs employee who passed the bar exam) can be viewed together on the “Legitimacy of Job Transfer (On-Site Assignment of a Legal Affairs Employee Who Passed the Bar Exam) Related Decisions” page.
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
- Case Name: Unfair Dismissal Decision on “Legitimacy of Job Transfer (On-Site Assignment of a Legal Affairs Employee Who Passed the Bar Exam)”
- Date of Decision:
- Case Number: Dismissed
- Adjudicating Body: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025BuHae3890 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2025.11.19
- Summary of Outcome: (a)
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This case concerns a labor commission proceeding in which the issues were whether there had been an unfair dismissal and an unfair personnel measure, where an employee who had been performing legal affairs at the head office was first placed on standby (daegi-balryeong) and then transferred to a construction site as a safety monitor. The employee argued that the transfer was unjustified in light of his/her experience of having passed the bar exam and prior legal affairs duties, while the employer asserted the legitimacy of its exercise of managerial prerogative based on business necessity and a shortage of safety management personnel at construction sites.
Ⅱ. Issues
The issues in this case are: in a situation where a transfer order was issued following a standby order, (i) whether there exists any separate remedial interest in relation to the standby order itself, and (ii) whether the measure of transferring a head-office legal affairs employee to a construction-site safety monitor position constitutes a legitimate exercise of the employer’s personnel authority.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Commission’s Reasoning
The panel held that the standby order was rendered moot by the subsequent transfer order issued on 4 September 2025, and that there was no remedial interest in relation to the standby period because the employee received full wages during that period and no separate legal disadvantage such as restrictions on promotion or pay grade advancement remained.
The panel further found: that, in light of the company’s deteriorating performance and the shortage of safety management personnel at construction sites, there was a recognized need to reassign head-office personnel to the sites; that, considering the results of the competency evaluation within the department, there was business necessity for assigning the employee to the safety monitor position; that there was no wage reduction due to the transfer, and disadvantages in terms of career management or changes in lifestyle patterns are difficult to regard as legal disadvantages, so that the level of inconvenience in daily life was within the range ordinarily to be borne; and that the employee, being on standby, could have anticipated a subsequent personnel order and the employer had been reviewing possible assignments to other departments even before the standby order. In view of these circumstances, the panel determined that the transfer in this case fell within the scope of a legitimate personnel order.
The dismissal disposition in this case was held to be unfair.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, where a transfer follows a standby order, it is important to note that the key to determining the existence of remedial interest at the standby stage is whether there remain any specific legal disadvantages in terms of wages, promotion, or career. In addition, to assert that a transfer is unjust, mere dissatisfaction with the content of the work or changes in lifestyle patterns is insufficient. The employee should prepare evidence that concretely demonstrates factors such as wage reduction, objective disadvantages in promotion or career, and the absence of business necessity for the transfer.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, even where the situation does not escalate to collective redundancies, in cases of transfers or standby orders accompanied by business necessity such as deteriorating performance or the need for personnel redeployment, it is important to retain objective documentation of such necessity and of the criteria for assignment. In particular, as this case illustrates, if documents are prepared setting out the competency evaluation results, the personnel supply-and-demand situation, the details of wage and treatment maintenance after the transfer, and the personnel review process before and after the standby order, the likelihood that the labor commission will recognize the legitimacy of the employer’s personnel authority increases.
To prevail in this type of case, it is crucial to accurately understand the balancing criteria applied by the labor commission and the courts between “business necessity” and “disadvantages in daily life,” and to structure and organize the facts in line with those criteria, in consultation with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&.
2. Matters Adjudicated
a. Case Overview and Procedural History
a. Whether the Standby Order Entails Remedial Interest
The standby order was rendered moot by the subsequent transfer on 4 September 2025, and as full wages were paid during the standby period and there was no legal disadvantage, it was determined that there was no remedial interest.
b. Legitimacy of the Transfer
Although the employee argued that he/she had passed the bar exam and had mainly handled legal affairs at the company, in light of the company’s deteriorating performance and the shortage of safety management personnel at construction sites, there was a need to reassign head-office personnel to the sites. Considering the results of the competency evaluation within the department, there was business necessity for assigning the employee to the site safety monitor position. There was no wage reduction due to the transfer, and disadvantages in terms of career management or changes in lifestyle patterns do not constitute legal disadvantages, so the disadvantages in daily life were at a level that could be borne. The employee, being on standby, could have anticipated a subsequent personnel order, and the employer had been reviewing possible assignments to other departments even before the standby order. In light of these factors, it is difficult to view the consultation procedure as having such a serious defect as to render it null and void.
3. Summary of Decision
a. Summary of the Labor Commission’s Reasoning
a. Whether the Standby Order Entails Remedial Interest
The standby order was rendered moot by the subsequent transfer on 4 September 2025, and as full wages were paid during the standby period and there was no legal disadvantage, it was determined that there was no remedial interest.
b. Legitimacy of the Transfer
Although the employee argued that he/she had passed the bar exam and had mainly handled legal affairs at the company, in light of the company’s deteriorating performance and the shortage of safety management personnel at construction sites, there was a need to reassign head-office personnel to the sites. Considering the results of the competency evaluation within the department, there was business necessity for assigning the employee to the site safety monitor position. There was no wage reduction due to the transfer, and disadvantages in terms of career management or changes in lifestyle patterns do not constitute legal disadvantages, so the disadvantages in daily life were at a level that could be borne. The employee, being on standby, could have anticipated a subsequent personnel order, and the employer had been reviewing possible assignments to other departments even before the standby order. In light of these factors, it is difficult to view the consultation procedure as having such a serious defect as to render 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 ‘Existence of Dismissal (Reinstatement to Original Position · Letter of Waiver of Reinstatement)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark Made by Telephone)’”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, legitimacy of job transfer (on-site assignment of a legal affairs employee who passed the bar exam), personnel orders · transfer, personnel 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 part of the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Existence of Dismissal (Reinstatement to Original Position · Letter of Waiver of Reinstatement)’,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to legitimacy of job transfer (on-site assignment of a legal affairs employee who passed the bar exam) can be viewed together on the “Legitimacy of Job Transfer (On-Site Assignment of a Legal Affairs Employee Who Passed the Bar Exam) Related Decisions” page.
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
