Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning “Transfer Order (Guidelines on Managing Employees with Illness or Health Abnormalities)” (Unfair Dismissal 155)
- Date2026/01/28 04:08
- Read 214
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) in a dispute over a “transfer order (Guidelines on Managing Employees with Illness or Health Abnormalities).”
Decision body: Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission
2025BuHae9070 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
Decision date: 2025.12.22 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issues:
A. Existence of business necessity
The employee’s illness was confirmed, and under the company’s Guidelines on Managing Employees with Health Abnormalities, it was reasonable to regard the employee as subject to management through a change in work environment. Accordingly, there was business necessity for the transfer order based on concerns about delayed recovery of the employee’s health and safety reasons.
1. Legal Implications
This application for remedy for unfair dismissal arose from a transfer order dispute concerning a workplace in the Jeonnam region, in which the employee argued that the transfer constituted an unfair dismissal, but the employer ultimately prevailed before the Labor Relations Commission. Focusing on the legal principles of “business necessity, degree of disadvantage in living conditions, and consultation procedures,” which frequently arise in the practice of Labor Law Firm Law&, the Commission examined whether the transfer measure taken pursuant to the company’s Guidelines on Managing Employees with Health Abnormalities constituted a legitimate exercise of managerial authority.
Ⅰ. Case Overview
The employee was found to have a health abnormality due to illness, and the company issued a transfer order changing the work environment pursuant to its internal Guidelines on Managing Employees with Health Abnormalities. Following the transfer, there were changes in treatment, such as the loss of overtime pay and a reduction in welfare mileage. The employee filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission, claiming that this amounted to a substantively disadvantageous transfer or, in effect, an unfair dismissal.
Ⅱ. Issues
The issue in this case was:
“In a transfer order based on an employee’s illness, where business necessity is recognized, does the combination of disadvantage in living conditions and failure to comply with consultation procedures render the transfer an abuse of rights, thereby constituting an unlawful personnel measure equivalent to unfair dismissal?”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case found that the employee’s illness had been objectively confirmed, that it was reasonable under the company’s Guidelines on Managing Employees with Health Abnormalities to regard the employee as subject to a change in work environment, and that there were concerns about delayed recovery of the employee’s health and a need to ensure safety. In light of these factors, the panel held that there was business necessity for issuing the transfer order.
The Commission reasoned that the mere facts that overtime pay was no longer generated and that welfare mileage was reduced did not suffice to deem the economic disadvantage substantial. It also noted that, after the end of the dispatch, the place of work to which the employee returned under the transfer order was within the same Gwangyang area, and therefore it was difficult to find that any inconvenience in living conditions caused by the change in workplace location significantly exceeded the level that an employee must ordinarily endure under social norms.
The Commission further acknowledged, in part, that the employer had not fully conducted a sincere consultation process with the employee in the course of issuing the transfer order. However, it cited Supreme Court precedents holding that, in assessing the legitimacy of transfers and reassignments, the three elements of “business necessity, disadvantage in living conditions, and consultation procedures required under the principle of good faith” must be considered comprehensively, and that failure to conduct consultation alone does not automatically render the transfer invalid.
Ultimately, the Commission held that the dismissal disposition in this case was not unfair, taking into account that business necessity for the transfer existed due to concerns about delayed recovery of the employee’s health and the need to ensure safety, that the disadvantage in living conditions did not significantly exceed the level that must ordinarily be endured, and that failure to comply with consultation procedures alone was insufficient to constitute an abuse of rights.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s standpoint, to challenge a transfer or reassignment as unjust, it is not enough simply to assert that “the new position is worse than the original one.” The employee must prove, with concrete figures and evidence, that the disadvantage in living conditions—such as wages, benefits, commuting distance, and health impact—is so serious that it is difficult to endure under social norms. In particular, for transfers related to health or illness, it is important to sufficiently secure medical opinions and comparative data on the work environment before and after the transfer, in order to determine whether the employer’s stated ground of “health protection” is merely formal and whether, in reality, the measure is a disadvantageous transfer or a disguised form of redundancy.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, to secure the legitimacy of a transfer order, first, internal guidelines, medical opinions, and work environment assessment materials that can objectively explain the business necessity of the transfer should be prepared in advance. Second, it is necessary to minimize disadvantages in living conditions arising from changes in wages, benefits, and workplace location, and to implement supplementary measures such as commuting support or allowance payments so that the disadvantage does not exceed the “ordinarily bearable range.”
Although, as in this Labor Relations Commission case, a transfer does not automatically become invalid solely due to failure to comply with consultation procedures, it is advisable, for future dispute prevention and compliance with the principle of good faith, to document basic consultation and communication procedures, such as explaining the reasons for the transfer, hearing the employee’s opinions, and presenting possible alternatives.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Existence of business necessity
The employee’s illness was confirmed, and it was reasonable to regard the employee as subject to management through a change in work environment under the company’s Guidelines on Managing Employees with Health Abnormalities. Accordingly, there was business necessity for issuing the transfer order based on concerns about delayed recovery of the employee’s health and safety reasons.
B. Degree of disadvantage in living conditions
The fact that overtime pay was no longer generated and that welfare mileage was reduced does not suffice to deem the economic disadvantage suffered by the employee substantial. It was confirmed that, after the end of the dispatch, the place of work to which the employee returned under the transfer order was within the same Gwangyang area, and the dispatch period was shortened and ended about three months earlier than scheduled. Therefore, it does not appear that the degree of disadvantage in living conditions caused by the transfer order significantly exceeded, under social norms, the level that an employee must ordinarily endure.
C. Compliance with consultation procedures required under the principle of good faith
Although it was partially confirmed that the employer did not conduct a sincere consultation process with the employee when issuing the transfer order, in light of the business necessity arising from concerns about delayed recovery of the employee’s health and the need to ensure safety, it is difficult to regard the transfer order as unfair solely on the ground that such procedures were not followed.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Existence of business necessity
The employee’s illness was confirmed, and it was reasonable to regard the employee as subject to management through a change in work environment under the company’s Guidelines on Managing Employees with Health Abnormalities. Accordingly, there was business necessity for issuing the transfer order based on concerns about delayed recovery of the employee’s health and safety reasons.
B. Degree of disadvantage in living conditions
The fact that overtime pay was no longer generated and that welfare mileage was reduced does not suffice to deem the economic disadvantage suffered by the employee substantial. It was confirmed that, after the end of the dispatch, the place of work to which the employee returned under the transfer order was within the same Gwangyang area, and the dispatch period was shortened and ended about three months earlier than scheduled. Therefore, it does not appear that the degree of disadvantage in living conditions caused by the transfer order significantly exceeded, under social norms, the level that an employee must ordinarily endure.
C. Compliance with consultation procedures required under the principle of good faith
Although it was partially confirmed that the employer did not conduct a sincere consultation process with the employee when issuing the transfer order, in light of the business necessity arising from concerns about delayed recovery of the employee’s health and the need to ensure safety, it is difficult to regard the transfer order as unfair solely on the ground that such procedures were not followed. /
[Further Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning ‘Probationary Dismissal (Notice of Refusal of Regular Employment After Three-Month Probation)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning ‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning ‘Non-Formation of Employment Offer (Absence of Offer Letter)’” – Decision date: – Case result: First-instance decision upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, transfer order (Guidelines on Managing Employees with Illness or Health Abnormalities), transfer/reassignment, abuse of managerial authority, industrial accidents/illness, 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 Case Concerning ‘Probationary Dismissal (Notice of Refusal of Regular Employment After Three-Month Probation)’,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to transfer orders (Guidelines on Managing Employees with Illness or Health Abnormalities) can be viewed together in the “List of Decisions Related to Transfer Orders (Guidelines on Managing Employees with Illness or Health Abnormalities).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) in a dispute over a “transfer order (Guidelines on Managing Employees with Illness or Health Abnormalities).”
Decision body: Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission
2025BuHae9070 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
Decision date: 2025.12.22 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issues:
A. Existence of business necessity
The employee’s illness was confirmed, and under the company’s Guidelines on Managing Employees with Health Abnormalities, it was reasonable to regard the employee as subject to management through a change in work environment. Accordingly, there was business necessity for the transfer order based on concerns about delayed recovery of the employee’s health and safety reasons.
1. Legal Implications
This application for remedy for unfair dismissal arose from a transfer order dispute concerning a workplace in the Jeonnam region, in which the employee argued that the transfer constituted an unfair dismissal, but the employer ultimately prevailed before the Labor Relations Commission. Focusing on the legal principles of “business necessity, degree of disadvantage in living conditions, and consultation procedures,” which frequently arise in the practice of Labor Law Firm Law&, the Commission examined whether the transfer measure taken pursuant to the company’s Guidelines on Managing Employees with Health Abnormalities constituted a legitimate exercise of managerial authority.
Ⅰ. Case Overview
The employee was found to have a health abnormality due to illness, and the company issued a transfer order changing the work environment pursuant to its internal Guidelines on Managing Employees with Health Abnormalities. Following the transfer, there were changes in treatment, such as the loss of overtime pay and a reduction in welfare mileage. The employee filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission, claiming that this amounted to a substantively disadvantageous transfer or, in effect, an unfair dismissal.
Ⅱ. Issues
The issue in this case was:
“In a transfer order based on an employee’s illness, where business necessity is recognized, does the combination of disadvantage in living conditions and failure to comply with consultation procedures render the transfer an abuse of rights, thereby constituting an unlawful personnel measure equivalent to unfair dismissal?”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case found that the employee’s illness had been objectively confirmed, that it was reasonable under the company’s Guidelines on Managing Employees with Health Abnormalities to regard the employee as subject to a change in work environment, and that there were concerns about delayed recovery of the employee’s health and a need to ensure safety. In light of these factors, the panel held that there was business necessity for issuing the transfer order.
The Commission reasoned that the mere facts that overtime pay was no longer generated and that welfare mileage was reduced did not suffice to deem the economic disadvantage substantial. It also noted that, after the end of the dispatch, the place of work to which the employee returned under the transfer order was within the same Gwangyang area, and therefore it was difficult to find that any inconvenience in living conditions caused by the change in workplace location significantly exceeded the level that an employee must ordinarily endure under social norms.
The Commission further acknowledged, in part, that the employer had not fully conducted a sincere consultation process with the employee in the course of issuing the transfer order. However, it cited Supreme Court precedents holding that, in assessing the legitimacy of transfers and reassignments, the three elements of “business necessity, disadvantage in living conditions, and consultation procedures required under the principle of good faith” must be considered comprehensively, and that failure to conduct consultation alone does not automatically render the transfer invalid.
Ultimately, the Commission held that the dismissal disposition in this case was not unfair, taking into account that business necessity for the transfer existed due to concerns about delayed recovery of the employee’s health and the need to ensure safety, that the disadvantage in living conditions did not significantly exceed the level that must ordinarily be endured, and that failure to comply with consultation procedures alone was insufficient to constitute an abuse of rights.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s standpoint, to challenge a transfer or reassignment as unjust, it is not enough simply to assert that “the new position is worse than the original one.” The employee must prove, with concrete figures and evidence, that the disadvantage in living conditions—such as wages, benefits, commuting distance, and health impact—is so serious that it is difficult to endure under social norms. In particular, for transfers related to health or illness, it is important to sufficiently secure medical opinions and comparative data on the work environment before and after the transfer, in order to determine whether the employer’s stated ground of “health protection” is merely formal and whether, in reality, the measure is a disadvantageous transfer or a disguised form of redundancy.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, to secure the legitimacy of a transfer order, first, internal guidelines, medical opinions, and work environment assessment materials that can objectively explain the business necessity of the transfer should be prepared in advance. Second, it is necessary to minimize disadvantages in living conditions arising from changes in wages, benefits, and workplace location, and to implement supplementary measures such as commuting support or allowance payments so that the disadvantage does not exceed the “ordinarily bearable range.”
Although, as in this Labor Relations Commission case, a transfer does not automatically become invalid solely due to failure to comply with consultation procedures, it is advisable, for future dispute prevention and compliance with the principle of good faith, to document basic consultation and communication procedures, such as explaining the reasons for the transfer, hearing the employee’s opinions, and presenting possible alternatives.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Existence of business necessity
The employee’s illness was confirmed, and it was reasonable to regard the employee as subject to management through a change in work environment under the company’s Guidelines on Managing Employees with Health Abnormalities. Accordingly, there was business necessity for issuing the transfer order based on concerns about delayed recovery of the employee’s health and safety reasons.
B. Degree of disadvantage in living conditions
The fact that overtime pay was no longer generated and that welfare mileage was reduced does not suffice to deem the economic disadvantage suffered by the employee substantial. It was confirmed that, after the end of the dispatch, the place of work to which the employee returned under the transfer order was within the same Gwangyang area, and the dispatch period was shortened and ended about three months earlier than scheduled. Therefore, it does not appear that the degree of disadvantage in living conditions caused by the transfer order significantly exceeded, under social norms, the level that an employee must ordinarily endure.
C. Compliance with consultation procedures required under the principle of good faith
Although it was partially confirmed that the employer did not conduct a sincere consultation process with the employee when issuing the transfer order, in light of the business necessity arising from concerns about delayed recovery of the employee’s health and the need to ensure safety, it is difficult to regard the transfer order as unfair solely on the ground that such procedures were not followed.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Existence of business necessity
The employee’s illness was confirmed, and it was reasonable to regard the employee as subject to management through a change in work environment under the company’s Guidelines on Managing Employees with Health Abnormalities. Accordingly, there was business necessity for issuing the transfer order based on concerns about delayed recovery of the employee’s health and safety reasons.
B. Degree of disadvantage in living conditions
The fact that overtime pay was no longer generated and that welfare mileage was reduced does not suffice to deem the economic disadvantage suffered by the employee substantial. It was confirmed that, after the end of the dispatch, the place of work to which the employee returned under the transfer order was within the same Gwangyang area, and the dispatch period was shortened and ended about three months earlier than scheduled. Therefore, it does not appear that the degree of disadvantage in living conditions caused by the transfer order significantly exceeded, under social norms, the level that an employee must ordinarily endure.
C. Compliance with consultation procedures required under the principle of good faith
Although it was partially confirmed that the employer did not conduct a sincere consultation process with the employee when issuing the transfer order, in light of the business necessity arising from concerns about delayed recovery of the employee’s health and the need to ensure safety, it is difficult to regard the transfer order as unfair solely on the ground that such procedures were not followed. /
[Further Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning ‘Probationary Dismissal (Notice of Refusal of Regular Employment After Three-Month Probation)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning ‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning ‘Non-Formation of Employment Offer (Absence of Offer Letter)’” – Decision date: – Case result: First-instance decision upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, transfer order (Guidelines on Managing Employees with Illness or Health Abnormalities), transfer/reassignment, abuse of managerial authority, industrial accidents/illness, 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 Case Concerning ‘Probationary Dismissal (Notice of Refusal of Regular Employment After Three-Month Probation)’,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to transfer orders (Guidelines on Managing Employees with Illness or Health Abnormalities) can be viewed together in the “List of Decisions Related to Transfer Orders (Guidelines on Managing Employees with Illness or Health Abnormalities).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
