Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning “Reassignment (Transfer from Office Building to Plant Building within the Same Workplace)” (Unfair Dismissal 160)
- Date2026/01/30 04:04
- Read 220
This case concerns an unfair dismissal decision arising from a dispute over a “reassignment (transfer from the office building to the plant building within the same workplace),” in which the employer ultimately prevailed (application dismissed).
Decision body: Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025BuHae9052 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
Decision date: 2025.12.22 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issues:
A. Existence of business necessity
Given the decrease in workload for wind power operations and the increase in workload for newbuilding supervision, the reassignment was considered to have business necessity in light of the rationality and efficiency of the company’s operations.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this application for remedy for unfair dismissal, the issue was whether the employer’s measure of reassigning a worker from the 2nd floor of the office building to the 2nd floor of the plant building, within the same workplace, constituted an abuse of managerial prerogative in personnel matters. The Labor Relations Commission examined the legitimacy of the reassignment order on the premise of the company’s circumstances, namely the decrease in wind power–related workload and the increase in newbuilding supervision workload.
The employee argued that the reassignment caused significant disadvantages in daily life and that no sufficient consultation procedure had been followed, and was therefore unfair. The company, on the other hand, asserted that it was an unavoidable redeployment of personnel necessitated by business needs.
Ⅱ. Issues in Dispute
The issue in this case is whether a reassignment that changes only the place of work within the same workplace, without any change in position, pay, or working hours, constitutes an abuse of managerial prerogative when comprehensively considering (i) business necessity, (ii) disadvantages in the employee’s daily life, and (iii) whether consultation procedures were followed.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The decision panel in this case noted that the workload for wind power operations had decreased while the workload for newbuilding supervision had increased, that under these circumstances the company sought to enhance the rationality and efficiency of its operations through personnel redeployment, and that there was no substantive change in the employee’s position, working hours, wages, or commuting time after the reassignment.
In light of these factors, the Commission found it difficult to view the disadvantages in daily life suffered by the employee as a result of moving from the 2nd floor of the office building to the 2nd floor of the plant building as significantly exceeding the level that an ordinary worker should be expected to endure. It also found that the employer had attempted to consult on the reassignment in the form of an individual interview through the Executive Vice President prior to the reassignment, and that even if such consultation could not be regarded as fully sufficient, this circumstance alone did not mean that the reassignment constituted an abuse of managerial prerogative exceeding the limits set by Article 23 of the Labor Standards Act.
Ultimately, the Commission held that the reassignment in this case was supported by business necessity, that the disadvantages in daily life were not excessive, and that the mere insufficiency of the consultation procedure did not render it invalid. Accordingly, it did not constitute an unfair reassignment or unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s standpoint, in order to challenge a reassignment or transfer as unfair, it is not enough simply to state that one “does not want” the reassignment. One must specifically prove that there is an objective lack of business necessity for the reassignment, or that the disadvantages to one’s daily life significantly exceed the level ordinarily to be endured. Where the move is within the same workplace, and there is no change in position, pay, or working hours, and no substantive change in commuting time, the Labor Relations Commission tends not to readily find an abuse of managerial prerogative. It is therefore important to organize and substantiate specific disadvantageous circumstances, such as health conditions, family care responsibilities, and transportation conditions.
Even if the consultation procedure was somewhat formalistic, that fact alone does not automatically render the reassignment invalid. During the consultation process, it is advisable to fully communicate one’s circumstances and, where necessary, to leave an objective record in writing or by email, as this may work favorably in any subsequent dispute.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, although reassignments and transfers are more broadly accepted than redundancies, it is still necessary to satisfy the three pillars of “business necessity, disadvantages in daily life, and procedures required under the principle of good faith” in order to mount a successful defense before the Labor Relations Commission or the courts. As in this case, it is helpful to retain objective materials (such as organizational charts, workload statistics, and process plans) demonstrating the decrease in volume of a particular type of work (wind power), the increase in another (newbuilding supervision), and the resulting need for personnel redeployment. These will serve as important defensive materials in the event of a dispute.
Moreover, even where the disadvantages in daily life arising from a change in workplace location are not substantial, it is desirable to at least conduct individual interviews to explain the necessity of the reassignment and to keep records of having heard the employee’s circumstances. While non-compliance with consultation procedures alone does not render a reassignment invalid, the extent to which procedures “required under the principle of good faith” have been followed is always an important factor in determining whether there has been an abuse of managerial prerogative in personnel matters, and this should be borne in mind in practice.
This decision of the Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission shows, as in unfair dismissal and redundancy cases, that in reassignment disputes as well, the key is to systematically prepare the three elements of “business necessity – disadvantages in daily life – consultation procedures.” Based on these legal principles, Labor Law Firm Law& aims to provide practical solutions to both employees and companies in Labor Relations Commission disputes involving reassignment, transfer, and changes in job placement.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Existence of Business Necessity
In light of the decrease in workload for wind power operations and the increase in workload for newbuilding supervision, and considering the rationality and efficiency of the company’s operations, the reassignment had business necessity.
B. Existence of Disadvantages in Daily Life
The employee’s reassignment involved only a change in workplace location from the 2nd floor of the company’s office building to the 2nd floor of the plant building, with no change in position, working hours, wages, or commuting time. It was therefore determined that the disadvantages in daily life resulting from the reassignment did not significantly exceed the level ordinarily to be endured.
C. Compliance with Consultation Procedures Required under the Principle of Good Faith
The employer appears to have attempted to consult on the reassignment with the employee through individual interviews conducted by Executive Vice President Shin. Even if this process is difficult to regard as a fully sufficient consultation procedure, this circumstance alone does not mean that the reassignment constitutes an abuse of the employer’s managerial prerogative in personnel matters and is therefore automatically null and void.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Existence of Business Necessity
In light of the decrease in workload for wind power operations and the increase in workload for newbuilding supervision, and considering the rationality and efficiency of the company’s operations, the reassignment had business necessity.
B. Existence of Disadvantages in Daily Life
The employee’s reassignment involved only a change in workplace location from the 2nd floor of the company’s office building to the 2nd floor of the plant building, with no change in position, working hours, wages, or commuting time. It was therefore determined that the disadvantages in daily life resulting from the reassignment did not significantly exceed the level ordinarily to be endured.
C. Compliance with Consultation Procedures Required under the Principle of Good Faith
The employer appears to have attempted to consult on the reassignment with the employee through individual interviews conducted by Executive Vice President Shin. Even if this process is difficult to regard as a fully sufficient consultation procedure, this circumstance alone does not mean that the reassignment constitutes an abuse of the employer’s managerial prerogative in personnel matters and is therefore automatically null and void. /
[Further Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Non-fulfilment of Redundancy Requirements (Workout Company)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Expression of Intention to Resign (Resignation Remarks Made by Telephone)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Non-formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’” – Decision date: – Case result: First-instance decision upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, reassignment (transfer from office building to plant building within the same workplace), reassignment·transfer, personnel transfer, abuse of managerial prerogative in personnel matters, 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 Labor Law Firm Law&’s “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series.
※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Disciplinary Severity (Drunk Driving·Train Operation)’,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to reassignment (transfer from office building to plant building within the same workplace) can be viewed together in the “Reassignment (Transfer from Office Building to Plant Building within the Same Workplace) Related Decisions” list.
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
Decision body: Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025BuHae9052 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
Decision date: 2025.12.22 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issues:
A. Existence of business necessity
Given the decrease in workload for wind power operations and the increase in workload for newbuilding supervision, the reassignment was considered to have business necessity in light of the rationality and efficiency of the company’s operations.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this application for remedy for unfair dismissal, the issue was whether the employer’s measure of reassigning a worker from the 2nd floor of the office building to the 2nd floor of the plant building, within the same workplace, constituted an abuse of managerial prerogative in personnel matters. The Labor Relations Commission examined the legitimacy of the reassignment order on the premise of the company’s circumstances, namely the decrease in wind power–related workload and the increase in newbuilding supervision workload.
The employee argued that the reassignment caused significant disadvantages in daily life and that no sufficient consultation procedure had been followed, and was therefore unfair. The company, on the other hand, asserted that it was an unavoidable redeployment of personnel necessitated by business needs.
Ⅱ. Issues in Dispute
The issue in this case is whether a reassignment that changes only the place of work within the same workplace, without any change in position, pay, or working hours, constitutes an abuse of managerial prerogative when comprehensively considering (i) business necessity, (ii) disadvantages in the employee’s daily life, and (iii) whether consultation procedures were followed.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The decision panel in this case noted that the workload for wind power operations had decreased while the workload for newbuilding supervision had increased, that under these circumstances the company sought to enhance the rationality and efficiency of its operations through personnel redeployment, and that there was no substantive change in the employee’s position, working hours, wages, or commuting time after the reassignment.
In light of these factors, the Commission found it difficult to view the disadvantages in daily life suffered by the employee as a result of moving from the 2nd floor of the office building to the 2nd floor of the plant building as significantly exceeding the level that an ordinary worker should be expected to endure. It also found that the employer had attempted to consult on the reassignment in the form of an individual interview through the Executive Vice President prior to the reassignment, and that even if such consultation could not be regarded as fully sufficient, this circumstance alone did not mean that the reassignment constituted an abuse of managerial prerogative exceeding the limits set by Article 23 of the Labor Standards Act.
Ultimately, the Commission held that the reassignment in this case was supported by business necessity, that the disadvantages in daily life were not excessive, and that the mere insufficiency of the consultation procedure did not render it invalid. Accordingly, it did not constitute an unfair reassignment or unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s standpoint, in order to challenge a reassignment or transfer as unfair, it is not enough simply to state that one “does not want” the reassignment. One must specifically prove that there is an objective lack of business necessity for the reassignment, or that the disadvantages to one’s daily life significantly exceed the level ordinarily to be endured. Where the move is within the same workplace, and there is no change in position, pay, or working hours, and no substantive change in commuting time, the Labor Relations Commission tends not to readily find an abuse of managerial prerogative. It is therefore important to organize and substantiate specific disadvantageous circumstances, such as health conditions, family care responsibilities, and transportation conditions.
Even if the consultation procedure was somewhat formalistic, that fact alone does not automatically render the reassignment invalid. During the consultation process, it is advisable to fully communicate one’s circumstances and, where necessary, to leave an objective record in writing or by email, as this may work favorably in any subsequent dispute.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, although reassignments and transfers are more broadly accepted than redundancies, it is still necessary to satisfy the three pillars of “business necessity, disadvantages in daily life, and procedures required under the principle of good faith” in order to mount a successful defense before the Labor Relations Commission or the courts. As in this case, it is helpful to retain objective materials (such as organizational charts, workload statistics, and process plans) demonstrating the decrease in volume of a particular type of work (wind power), the increase in another (newbuilding supervision), and the resulting need for personnel redeployment. These will serve as important defensive materials in the event of a dispute.
Moreover, even where the disadvantages in daily life arising from a change in workplace location are not substantial, it is desirable to at least conduct individual interviews to explain the necessity of the reassignment and to keep records of having heard the employee’s circumstances. While non-compliance with consultation procedures alone does not render a reassignment invalid, the extent to which procedures “required under the principle of good faith” have been followed is always an important factor in determining whether there has been an abuse of managerial prerogative in personnel matters, and this should be borne in mind in practice.
This decision of the Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission shows, as in unfair dismissal and redundancy cases, that in reassignment disputes as well, the key is to systematically prepare the three elements of “business necessity – disadvantages in daily life – consultation procedures.” Based on these legal principles, Labor Law Firm Law& aims to provide practical solutions to both employees and companies in Labor Relations Commission disputes involving reassignment, transfer, and changes in job placement.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Existence of Business Necessity
In light of the decrease in workload for wind power operations and the increase in workload for newbuilding supervision, and considering the rationality and efficiency of the company’s operations, the reassignment had business necessity.
B. Existence of Disadvantages in Daily Life
The employee’s reassignment involved only a change in workplace location from the 2nd floor of the company’s office building to the 2nd floor of the plant building, with no change in position, working hours, wages, or commuting time. It was therefore determined that the disadvantages in daily life resulting from the reassignment did not significantly exceed the level ordinarily to be endured.
C. Compliance with Consultation Procedures Required under the Principle of Good Faith
The employer appears to have attempted to consult on the reassignment with the employee through individual interviews conducted by Executive Vice President Shin. Even if this process is difficult to regard as a fully sufficient consultation procedure, this circumstance alone does not mean that the reassignment constitutes an abuse of the employer’s managerial prerogative in personnel matters and is therefore automatically null and void.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Existence of Business Necessity
In light of the decrease in workload for wind power operations and the increase in workload for newbuilding supervision, and considering the rationality and efficiency of the company’s operations, the reassignment had business necessity.
B. Existence of Disadvantages in Daily Life
The employee’s reassignment involved only a change in workplace location from the 2nd floor of the company’s office building to the 2nd floor of the plant building, with no change in position, working hours, wages, or commuting time. It was therefore determined that the disadvantages in daily life resulting from the reassignment did not significantly exceed the level ordinarily to be endured.
C. Compliance with Consultation Procedures Required under the Principle of Good Faith
The employer appears to have attempted to consult on the reassignment with the employee through individual interviews conducted by Executive Vice President Shin. Even if this process is difficult to regard as a fully sufficient consultation procedure, this circumstance alone does not mean that the reassignment constitutes an abuse of the employer’s managerial prerogative in personnel matters and is therefore automatically null and void. /
[Further Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Non-fulfilment of Redundancy Requirements (Workout Company)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Expression of Intention to Resign (Resignation Remarks Made by Telephone)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Non-formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’” – Decision date: – Case result: First-instance decision upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, reassignment (transfer from office building to plant building within the same workplace), reassignment·transfer, personnel transfer, abuse of managerial prerogative in personnel matters, 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 Labor Law Firm Law&’s “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series.
※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Disciplinary Severity (Drunk Driving·Train Operation)’,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to reassignment (transfer from office building to plant building within the same workplace) can be viewed together in the “Reassignment (Transfer from Office Building to Plant Building within the Same Workplace) Related Decisions” list.
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
