Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Decision on “Transfer Order (Redeployment of Surplus Personnel After Large-Scale Voluntary Retirement)” (Unfair Dismissal 109)
- Date2026/01/14 04:05
- Read 216
[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 after large-scale voluntary retirement).”
Decision body: Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae820 ○ ○ ○ 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. In a situation where efficient personnel management was required as a result, it appears that the company issued a personnel order to reassign surplus personnel. Accordingly, the business necessity of the personnel order is deemed to be established.
1. Legal Implications
In this application for remedy for unfair dismissal, the employee’s claim was dismissed after the parties disputed the legitimacy of a transfer order before the Labor Relations Commission. The case clearly shows the criteria used by the Commission in assessing the lawfulness of the employer’s exercise of its managerial prerogative in personnel matters. As disputes over transfers and reassignments frequently arise after layoffs or restructuring, Labor Law Firm Law& recommends reviewing this decision to identify practical points to note.
Ⅰ. Case Overview
Citing business deterioration, the company implemented a large-scale voluntary retirement program in August 2024. Thereafter, to redeploy surplus personnel among the remaining workforce, the company issued a transfer personnel order to a specific employee. The employee claimed that the transfer caused disadvantages in his/her daily life and that proper consultation procedures had not been followed, arguing that this constituted an unfair transfer equivalent to an unfair dismissal, and filed an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether a transfer order issued in the course of business deterioration and efforts to avoid or subsequently adjust personnel following layoffs is a legitimate exercise of managerial prerogative in personnel matters—when comprehensively considering business necessity, disadvantages in the employee’s daily life, and whether consultation procedures were followed—or whether it constitutes an unfair transfer amounting to an unfair dismissal.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case found that: the company had implemented a large-scale voluntary retirement program due to business deterioration; thereafter, it issued the transfer order to achieve efficient personnel management and resolve surplus personnel; and, even after the transfer, the employee’s commuting time remained similar and incentives actually increased somewhat. In light of these circumstances, the Commission held that business necessity for the transfer order was established and that the disadvantages in the employee’s daily life did not significantly exceed the level ordinarily to be borne.
The Commission also found that the employer had met with the employee several times and discussed the transfer during those meetings. Even assuming, as the employee alleged, that consultation had not been conducted with sufficient sincerity, in light of the purport of Supreme Court precedents, defects in the consultation procedure alone do not immediately render a transfer an abuse of rights or null and void. On this basis, the Commission held that the transfer order in this case was a legitimate exercise of managerial prerogative in personnel matters and dismissed the employee’s application for remedy.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s standpoint, to argue that a transfer or reassignment is unfair, it is not sufficient merely to state, “I do not want it,” or “There was not enough discussion.” The employee must specifically prove that there was no, or only very weak, business necessity, yet only certain employees were unreasonably targeted, or that the disadvantages to daily life caused by the transfer clearly exceed the range ordinarily to be endured. It is important to organize objective materials regarding disadvantageous factors such as commuting distance and time, substantive changes in wages, allowances, and incentives, the difficulty level of the new duties, and any impact on health.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, before issuing a transfer or reassignment order, it is very important for dispute prevention to document, with written records and figures, the “business necessity” such as the need for business management, organizational efficiency, and elimination of surplus personnel. In addition, systematically managing records of interviews with employees, explanations of the reasons for the transfer, and any measures taken to mitigate disadvantages (support for transportation or accommodation, adjustment of incentives, etc.) will increase the likelihood that the Labor Relations Commission will recognize the legitimacy of the transfer order. Employers should therefore establish such procedures in advance, particularly in phases of personnel redeployment following layoffs or voluntary retirement programs.
2. Matters Determined
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. In a situation where efficient personnel management was required as a result, it appears that the company issued a personnel order to reassign surplus personnel. Accordingly, the business necessity of the personnel order is deemed to be established.
B. Existence of disadvantages in daily life
Although the employee’s commuting time remained similar after the transfer and there were some differences in the economic benefits received from the employer, incentives increased somewhat. Therefore, it is difficult to regard this as a disadvantage in daily life.
C. Compliance with consultation procedures required under the principle of good faith
The employer met with the employee several times, and it is recognized that discussions regarding the transfer took place during those meetings. Thus, it appears that the “consultation” procedure required under the principle of good faith was followed. Even if, as the employee claims, sincere consultation procedures were not fully conducted, that circumstance 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. In a situation where efficient personnel management was required as a result, it appears that the company issued a personnel order to reassign surplus personnel. Accordingly, the business necessity of the personnel order is deemed to be established.
B. Existence of disadvantages in daily life
Although the employee’s commuting time remained similar after the transfer and there were some differences in the economic benefits received from the employer, incentives increased somewhat. Therefore, it is difficult to regard this as a disadvantage in daily life.
C. Compliance with consultation procedures required under the principle of good faith
The employer met with the employee several times, and it is recognized that discussions regarding the transfer took place during those meetings. Thus, it appears that the “consultation” procedure required under the principle of good faith was followed. Even if, as the employee claims, sincere consultation procedures were not fully conducted, that circumstance alone does not render the transfer unfair. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Non-Formation of Employment Offer (Absence of Offer Letter)’” – Decision date: – Case result: First-instance decision upheld
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Dismissal of Application (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’” – Decision date: – Case result: Dismissed
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, transfer order (redeployment of surplus personnel after large-scale voluntary retirement), personnel movement·transfer, 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 the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Transfer Order (Redeployment of Surplus Personnel After Voluntary Retirement Due to Business Deterioration)’,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to transfer orders (redeployment of surplus personnel after large-scale voluntary retirement) can be viewed together in the “List of Decisions on Transfer Orders (Redeployment of Surplus Personnel After Large-Scale Voluntary Retirement).”
※ 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 after large-scale voluntary retirement).”
Decision body: Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae820 ○ ○ ○ 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. In a situation where efficient personnel management was required as a result, it appears that the company issued a personnel order to reassign surplus personnel. Accordingly, the business necessity of the personnel order is deemed to be established.
1. Legal Implications
In this application for remedy for unfair dismissal, the employee’s claim was dismissed after the parties disputed the legitimacy of a transfer order before the Labor Relations Commission. The case clearly shows the criteria used by the Commission in assessing the lawfulness of the employer’s exercise of its managerial prerogative in personnel matters. As disputes over transfers and reassignments frequently arise after layoffs or restructuring, Labor Law Firm Law& recommends reviewing this decision to identify practical points to note.
Ⅰ. Case Overview
Citing business deterioration, the company implemented a large-scale voluntary retirement program in August 2024. Thereafter, to redeploy surplus personnel among the remaining workforce, the company issued a transfer personnel order to a specific employee. The employee claimed that the transfer caused disadvantages in his/her daily life and that proper consultation procedures had not been followed, arguing that this constituted an unfair transfer equivalent to an unfair dismissal, and filed an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether a transfer order issued in the course of business deterioration and efforts to avoid or subsequently adjust personnel following layoffs is a legitimate exercise of managerial prerogative in personnel matters—when comprehensively considering business necessity, disadvantages in the employee’s daily life, and whether consultation procedures were followed—or whether it constitutes an unfair transfer amounting to an unfair dismissal.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case found that: the company had implemented a large-scale voluntary retirement program due to business deterioration; thereafter, it issued the transfer order to achieve efficient personnel management and resolve surplus personnel; and, even after the transfer, the employee’s commuting time remained similar and incentives actually increased somewhat. In light of these circumstances, the Commission held that business necessity for the transfer order was established and that the disadvantages in the employee’s daily life did not significantly exceed the level ordinarily to be borne.
The Commission also found that the employer had met with the employee several times and discussed the transfer during those meetings. Even assuming, as the employee alleged, that consultation had not been conducted with sufficient sincerity, in light of the purport of Supreme Court precedents, defects in the consultation procedure alone do not immediately render a transfer an abuse of rights or null and void. On this basis, the Commission held that the transfer order in this case was a legitimate exercise of managerial prerogative in personnel matters and dismissed the employee’s application for remedy.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s standpoint, to argue that a transfer or reassignment is unfair, it is not sufficient merely to state, “I do not want it,” or “There was not enough discussion.” The employee must specifically prove that there was no, or only very weak, business necessity, yet only certain employees were unreasonably targeted, or that the disadvantages to daily life caused by the transfer clearly exceed the range ordinarily to be endured. It is important to organize objective materials regarding disadvantageous factors such as commuting distance and time, substantive changes in wages, allowances, and incentives, the difficulty level of the new duties, and any impact on health.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, before issuing a transfer or reassignment order, it is very important for dispute prevention to document, with written records and figures, the “business necessity” such as the need for business management, organizational efficiency, and elimination of surplus personnel. In addition, systematically managing records of interviews with employees, explanations of the reasons for the transfer, and any measures taken to mitigate disadvantages (support for transportation or accommodation, adjustment of incentives, etc.) will increase the likelihood that the Labor Relations Commission will recognize the legitimacy of the transfer order. Employers should therefore establish such procedures in advance, particularly in phases of personnel redeployment following layoffs or voluntary retirement programs.
2. Matters Determined
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. In a situation where efficient personnel management was required as a result, it appears that the company issued a personnel order to reassign surplus personnel. Accordingly, the business necessity of the personnel order is deemed to be established.
B. Existence of disadvantages in daily life
Although the employee’s commuting time remained similar after the transfer and there were some differences in the economic benefits received from the employer, incentives increased somewhat. Therefore, it is difficult to regard this as a disadvantage in daily life.
C. Compliance with consultation procedures required under the principle of good faith
The employer met with the employee several times, and it is recognized that discussions regarding the transfer took place during those meetings. Thus, it appears that the “consultation” procedure required under the principle of good faith was followed. Even if, as the employee claims, sincere consultation procedures were not fully conducted, that circumstance 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. In a situation where efficient personnel management was required as a result, it appears that the company issued a personnel order to reassign surplus personnel. Accordingly, the business necessity of the personnel order is deemed to be established.
B. Existence of disadvantages in daily life
Although the employee’s commuting time remained similar after the transfer and there were some differences in the economic benefits received from the employer, incentives increased somewhat. Therefore, it is difficult to regard this as a disadvantage in daily life.
C. Compliance with consultation procedures required under the principle of good faith
The employer met with the employee several times, and it is recognized that discussions regarding the transfer took place during those meetings. Thus, it appears that the “consultation” procedure required under the principle of good faith was followed. Even if, as the employee claims, sincere consultation procedures were not fully conducted, that circumstance alone does not render the transfer unfair. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Non-Formation of Employment Offer (Absence of Offer Letter)’” – Decision date: – Case result: First-instance decision upheld
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Dismissal of Application (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’” – Decision date: – Case result: Dismissed
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, transfer order (redeployment of surplus personnel after large-scale voluntary retirement), personnel movement·transfer, 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 the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Transfer Order (Redeployment of Surplus Personnel After Voluntary Retirement Due to Business Deterioration)’,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to transfer orders (redeployment of surplus personnel after large-scale voluntary retirement) can be viewed together in the “List of Decisions on Transfer Orders (Redeployment of Surplus Personnel After Large-Scale Voluntary Retirement).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
