Corporate trends / Performance record
‘Transfer Order (Redeployment of Surplus Personnel Following Voluntary Retirement Due to Business Downturn)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision (Unfair Dismissal 108)
- Date2026/01/13 21:12
- Read 218
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of a “transfer order (redeployment of surplus personnel following voluntary retirement due to business downturn).”
Decision body: Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae704 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
Decision date: 2025.11.17 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issues:
A. Existence of business necessity
The company implemented a large-scale voluntary retirement program in August 2024 due to business deterioration, and in a situation where efficient personnel management was required as a result, it appears to have issued a personnel order to redeploy surplus personnel. Accordingly, the business necessity of the personnel order is deemed to be established.
1. Legal Implications
This article examines how the Labor Relations Commission assessed the legitimacy of a transfer/relocation personnel order, which can easily become intertwined with unfair dismissal disputes. Based on the Commission’s decision, Labor Law Firm Law& summarizes practical points that both employees and companies can refer to, from the perspective of actually handling redundancy and transfer disputes.
Ⅰ. Case Overview
The company, citing business deterioration, implemented a large-scale voluntary retirement program in August 2024. Thereafter, it issued transfer orders for the purpose of redeploying surplus personnel to achieve efficient personnel management. The employee applied to the Labor Relations Commission for relief, arguing that the transfer resulted in longer commuting time and changes in the level of economic support, thereby causing disadvantages in daily life, and that the lack of sufficient consultation procedures rendered the measure an unfair dismissal and unfair personnel action. The Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission conducted its hearing focusing on whether this transfer order fell within the scope of a legitimate exercise of the employer’s personnel authority.
Ⅱ. Issues
The issue in this case is:
“In the process of redeploying remaining surplus personnel after implementing a large-scale voluntary retirement program due to business deterioration, a transfer order was issued that resulted in increased commuting time and certain economic disadvantages, and where the consultation procedure was arguably insufficient. In these circumstances, is the transfer order a legitimate exercise of personnel authority, or is it an unfair transfer that has an effect equivalent to unfair dismissal and is therefore null and void?”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case found that the employer had already implemented a large-scale voluntary retirement program due to business deterioration; that the subsequent personnel order appears to have been issued to redeploy surplus personnel in order to manage the remaining workforce efficiently; and that, although the transfer resulted in increased commuting time and differences in economic costs, it was difficult to view the level of such disadvantages as significantly exceeding what an employee would ordinarily be expected to endure. In light of these factors, the panel held that both the business necessity of the personnel order and the tolerability of the disadvantages in daily life were established.
The panel also found that the employer had held several meetings with the employee and had in fact discussed the transfer during those meetings. Even if, as the employee argued, the consultation could not be regarded as fully sincere, in light of the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence, the mere fact that the consultation procedure was inadequate does not, by itself, amount to an abuse of right or a violation of Article 23 of the Labor Standards Act. Furthermore, the transfer order appeared to be part of a redeployment of personnel necessitated by business needs, rather than a disciplinary or disadvantageous disposition. On these grounds, the Commission held that the personnel order in this case constituted a legitimate exercise of personnel authority.
The dismissal in this case was held to be unfair on the ground that it was difficult to regard the transfer order itself as unlawful, and that the refusal of the transfer and subsequent developments alone could not be deemed to constitute unfair dismissal under the Labor Standards Act.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, it is important to understand that a transfer or relocation is not automatically recognized as unfair dismissal or an unfair personnel action. The Labor Relations Commission considers three elements comprehensively: (i) business necessity, (ii) the degree of disadvantage in daily life, and (iii) the consultation procedure. Even where there are disadvantages such as increased commuting time or a reduction in certain allowances, it will be difficult to obtain relief unless you can prove with objective evidence that the degree of disadvantage significantly exceeds the level that is “ordinarily to be endured.”
In addition, if the company has conducted a certain level of meetings and explanations, there are limits to claiming the nullity of the transfer solely on the ground of insufficient consultation. However, where the place of work or duties are specified in the employment contract or work rules, a change may constitute a modification of the terms of the employment contract. Therefore, if you receive a transfer notice, you should immediately check the relevant rules and contractual provisions and, if necessary, seek advice from experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the company’s perspective, when using transfers/relocations to redeploy surplus personnel in the context of business deterioration or redundancies, it is important, first, to internally document the objective necessity for changes in personnel allocation and the rationality of including the particular employee in the selection. Second, you should identify in advance the impact of the transfer on commuting distance, changes in allowances, and working conditions, and document efforts to mitigate disadvantages in daily life through measures such as commuting support or allowance adjustments.
Third, although, in line with Supreme Court precedents, the validity of a transfer is not determined solely by the presence or absence of a consultation procedure, keeping records of meetings, explanatory materials, and the employee’s opinions can significantly increase the likelihood that the Labor Relations Commission will find that the procedures required under the principle of good faith have been satisfied. Faithfully adhering to these basic principles is the most practical way to prevent disputes over unfair dismissal and unfair transfer.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Existence of business necessity
The company implemented a large-scale voluntary retirement program in August 2024 due to business deterioration, and in a situation where efficient personnel management was required as a result, it appears to have issued a personnel order to redeploy surplus personnel. Accordingly, the business necessity of the personnel order is deemed to be established.
B. Existence of disadvantages in daily life
Although the transfer resulted in increased commuting time for the employee and some differences in the economic costs previously borne by the employer, it is difficult to regard this as a disadvantage in daily life. Even if it were to be considered such a disadvantage, it is difficult to view the disadvantage as significantly exceeding the level that an employee would ordinarily be expected to endure.
C. Compliance with consultation procedures required under the principle of good faith
The employer held several meetings with the employee, and it is recognized that the transfer was discussed during those meetings. Accordingly, it appears that the “consultation” procedure required under the principle of good faith was followed. Even if, as the employee claims, a sincere consultation procedure was not conducted, that fact alone does not render the transfer unfair.
3. Summary of Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Existence of business necessity
The company implemented a large-scale voluntary retirement program in August 2024 due to business deterioration, and in a situation where efficient personnel management was required as a result, it appears to have issued a personnel order to redeploy surplus personnel. Accordingly, the business necessity of the personnel order is deemed to be established.
B. Existence of disadvantages in daily life
Although the transfer resulted in increased commuting time for the employee and some differences in the economic costs previously borne by the employer, it is difficult to regard this as a disadvantage in daily life. Even if it were to be considered such a disadvantage, it is difficult to view the disadvantage as significantly exceeding the level that an employee would ordinarily be expected to endure.
C. Compliance with consultation procedures required under the principle of good faith
The employer held several meetings with the employee, and it is recognized that the transfer was discussed during those meetings. Accordingly, it appears that the “consultation” procedure required under the principle of good faith was followed. Even if, as the employee claims, a sincere consultation procedure was not conducted, that fact alone does not render the transfer unfair. /
[More Related Decisions]
- ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision on “Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)”’
- ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision on “Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)”’ – Decision date: – Case result: First-instance decision upheld
- ‘Labor Relations Commission Decision on Unfair Dismissal: “Dismissal (Two Failures to Appear)”’
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, transfer order (redeployment of surplus personnel following voluntary retirement due to business downturn), transfer/relocation, restructuring, 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 Decisions” series.
※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Non-Existence of Employee Status (Standing to Sue)’,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to transfer orders (redeployment of surplus personnel following voluntary retirement due to business downturn) can be viewed together in the “List of Decisions Related to Transfer Orders (Redeployment of Surplus Personnel Following Voluntary Retirement Due to Business Downturn).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of a “transfer order (redeployment of surplus personnel following voluntary retirement due to business downturn).”
Decision body: Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae704 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
Decision date: 2025.11.17 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issues:
A. Existence of business necessity
The company implemented a large-scale voluntary retirement program in August 2024 due to business deterioration, and in a situation where efficient personnel management was required as a result, it appears to have issued a personnel order to redeploy surplus personnel. Accordingly, the business necessity of the personnel order is deemed to be established.
1. Legal Implications
This article examines how the Labor Relations Commission assessed the legitimacy of a transfer/relocation personnel order, which can easily become intertwined with unfair dismissal disputes. Based on the Commission’s decision, Labor Law Firm Law& summarizes practical points that both employees and companies can refer to, from the perspective of actually handling redundancy and transfer disputes.
Ⅰ. Case Overview
The company, citing business deterioration, implemented a large-scale voluntary retirement program in August 2024. Thereafter, it issued transfer orders for the purpose of redeploying surplus personnel to achieve efficient personnel management. The employee applied to the Labor Relations Commission for relief, arguing that the transfer resulted in longer commuting time and changes in the level of economic support, thereby causing disadvantages in daily life, and that the lack of sufficient consultation procedures rendered the measure an unfair dismissal and unfair personnel action. The Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission conducted its hearing focusing on whether this transfer order fell within the scope of a legitimate exercise of the employer’s personnel authority.
Ⅱ. Issues
The issue in this case is:
“In the process of redeploying remaining surplus personnel after implementing a large-scale voluntary retirement program due to business deterioration, a transfer order was issued that resulted in increased commuting time and certain economic disadvantages, and where the consultation procedure was arguably insufficient. In these circumstances, is the transfer order a legitimate exercise of personnel authority, or is it an unfair transfer that has an effect equivalent to unfair dismissal and is therefore null and void?”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case found that the employer had already implemented a large-scale voluntary retirement program due to business deterioration; that the subsequent personnel order appears to have been issued to redeploy surplus personnel in order to manage the remaining workforce efficiently; and that, although the transfer resulted in increased commuting time and differences in economic costs, it was difficult to view the level of such disadvantages as significantly exceeding what an employee would ordinarily be expected to endure. In light of these factors, the panel held that both the business necessity of the personnel order and the tolerability of the disadvantages in daily life were established.
The panel also found that the employer had held several meetings with the employee and had in fact discussed the transfer during those meetings. Even if, as the employee argued, the consultation could not be regarded as fully sincere, in light of the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence, the mere fact that the consultation procedure was inadequate does not, by itself, amount to an abuse of right or a violation of Article 23 of the Labor Standards Act. Furthermore, the transfer order appeared to be part of a redeployment of personnel necessitated by business needs, rather than a disciplinary or disadvantageous disposition. On these grounds, the Commission held that the personnel order in this case constituted a legitimate exercise of personnel authority.
The dismissal in this case was held to be unfair on the ground that it was difficult to regard the transfer order itself as unlawful, and that the refusal of the transfer and subsequent developments alone could not be deemed to constitute unfair dismissal under the Labor Standards Act.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, it is important to understand that a transfer or relocation is not automatically recognized as unfair dismissal or an unfair personnel action. The Labor Relations Commission considers three elements comprehensively: (i) business necessity, (ii) the degree of disadvantage in daily life, and (iii) the consultation procedure. Even where there are disadvantages such as increased commuting time or a reduction in certain allowances, it will be difficult to obtain relief unless you can prove with objective evidence that the degree of disadvantage significantly exceeds the level that is “ordinarily to be endured.”
In addition, if the company has conducted a certain level of meetings and explanations, there are limits to claiming the nullity of the transfer solely on the ground of insufficient consultation. However, where the place of work or duties are specified in the employment contract or work rules, a change may constitute a modification of the terms of the employment contract. Therefore, if you receive a transfer notice, you should immediately check the relevant rules and contractual provisions and, if necessary, seek advice from experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the company’s perspective, when using transfers/relocations to redeploy surplus personnel in the context of business deterioration or redundancies, it is important, first, to internally document the objective necessity for changes in personnel allocation and the rationality of including the particular employee in the selection. Second, you should identify in advance the impact of the transfer on commuting distance, changes in allowances, and working conditions, and document efforts to mitigate disadvantages in daily life through measures such as commuting support or allowance adjustments.
Third, although, in line with Supreme Court precedents, the validity of a transfer is not determined solely by the presence or absence of a consultation procedure, keeping records of meetings, explanatory materials, and the employee’s opinions can significantly increase the likelihood that the Labor Relations Commission will find that the procedures required under the principle of good faith have been satisfied. Faithfully adhering to these basic principles is the most practical way to prevent disputes over unfair dismissal and unfair transfer.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Existence of business necessity
The company implemented a large-scale voluntary retirement program in August 2024 due to business deterioration, and in a situation where efficient personnel management was required as a result, it appears to have issued a personnel order to redeploy surplus personnel. Accordingly, the business necessity of the personnel order is deemed to be established.
B. Existence of disadvantages in daily life
Although the transfer resulted in increased commuting time for the employee and some differences in the economic costs previously borne by the employer, it is difficult to regard this as a disadvantage in daily life. Even if it were to be considered such a disadvantage, it is difficult to view the disadvantage as significantly exceeding the level that an employee would ordinarily be expected to endure.
C. Compliance with consultation procedures required under the principle of good faith
The employer held several meetings with the employee, and it is recognized that the transfer was discussed during those meetings. Accordingly, it appears that the “consultation” procedure required under the principle of good faith was followed. Even if, as the employee claims, a sincere consultation procedure was not conducted, that fact alone does not render the transfer unfair.
3. Summary of Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Existence of business necessity
The company implemented a large-scale voluntary retirement program in August 2024 due to business deterioration, and in a situation where efficient personnel management was required as a result, it appears to have issued a personnel order to redeploy surplus personnel. Accordingly, the business necessity of the personnel order is deemed to be established.
B. Existence of disadvantages in daily life
Although the transfer resulted in increased commuting time for the employee and some differences in the economic costs previously borne by the employer, it is difficult to regard this as a disadvantage in daily life. Even if it were to be considered such a disadvantage, it is difficult to view the disadvantage as significantly exceeding the level that an employee would ordinarily be expected to endure.
C. Compliance with consultation procedures required under the principle of good faith
The employer held several meetings with the employee, and it is recognized that the transfer was discussed during those meetings. Accordingly, it appears that the “consultation” procedure required under the principle of good faith was followed. Even if, as the employee claims, a sincere consultation procedure was not conducted, that fact alone does not render the transfer unfair. /
[More Related Decisions]
- ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision on “Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)”’
- ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision on “Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)”’ – Decision date: – Case result: First-instance decision upheld
- ‘Labor Relations Commission Decision on Unfair Dismissal: “Dismissal (Two Failures to Appear)”’
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, transfer order (redeployment of surplus personnel following voluntary retirement due to business downturn), transfer/relocation, restructuring, 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 Decisions” series.
※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Non-Existence of Employee Status (Standing to Sue)’,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to transfer orders (redeployment of surplus personnel following voluntary retirement due to business downturn) can be viewed together in the “List of Decisions Related to Transfer Orders (Redeployment of Surplus Personnel Following Voluntary Retirement Due to Business Downturn).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
