Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Decision on “Reasonableness of Job Transfer (Welfare Center Sinjeju Branch)” (Unfair Dismissal 204)
- Date2026/02/15 04:09
- Read 232
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “reasonableness of job transfer (Welfare Center Sinjeju Branch).”
Decision Committee: Jeju Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae206 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2025.12.12 · Case Result: Dismissed
Summary of key issues:
A. Existence of business necessity
There was a need to resolve the concurrent position of the Sinjeju Branch Director; the employer took into account the employees’ capabilities, workload, prior work experience, and interpersonal harmony; personnel transfers between the main welfare center and the Sinjeju Branch could not be viewed as unusual; and there was insufficient basis to regard the transfer as retaliation for a workplace harassment incident that occurred in 2021. In light of these factors, the necessity of the transfer was recognized.
---
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, an employee working at a welfare center received a transfer order in the course of a personnel reshuffle aimed at resolving the concurrent position of the Sinjeju Branch Director. The employee filed an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission, arguing that the transfer constituted an unfair personnel measure equivalent to unfair dismissal.
The Jeju Regional Labor Relations Commission comprehensively reviewed the business necessity of the transfer, the degree of disadvantage to the employee’s daily life, and whether consultation procedures were observed, and ultimately ruled in favor of the employer. This decision also serves as an important reference for similar cases handled by Labor Law Firm Law&.
Ⅱ. Issues in Dispute
The issue in this case is:
“In a welfare center where there is no separate provision prescribing a consultation procedure, whether a transfer order issued on the grounds of resolving the concurrent position of the Sinjeju Branch Director and reallocating personnel satisfies the requirement of business necessity, and whether the increase in commuting distance, added childcare burden, and lack of consultation are sufficient to render the transfer invalid.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case found that there was a need to resolve the concurrent position of the Sinjeju Branch Director; that personnel assignments were made in consideration of employees’ capabilities, workload, work experience, and interpersonal relationships; and that personnel movements between the main welfare center and the Sinjeju Branch could not be regarded as an unusual practice. On this basis, the panel held that the transfer satisfied the requirement of business necessity.
In addition, the panel noted that there was no change in wages, position, or working hours before and after the transfer; that the employee continued to perform the same or similar duties as those previously handled at the main center, so there was no break in job continuity; and that, even if commuting distance increased somewhat and childcare became somewhat less convenient, these did not amount to disadvantages in daily life that “clearly exceed the level that employees are ordinarily expected to endure,” as articulated in Supreme Court precedents.
Furthermore, the work rules, personnel regulations, and employment contract contained no provisions requiring an individual consultation procedure for personnel appointments; the foundation appeared to have delegated personnel authority over welfare center staff comprehensively to the welfare center director; and the employee had not previously raised procedural objections to other transfers. Taking these circumstances together, the panel held that the mere fact that no direct consultation was conducted with the employee did not render the transfer order a violation of the principle of good faith or an abuse of rights.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s standpoint, to challenge a transfer as unfair, it is necessary to prepare concrete evidence showing that disadvantages to daily life—such as reductions in wages or position, serious commuting difficulties, or job discontinuity—clearly exceed the “range ordinarily to be endured” by employees, rather than amounting to mere inconvenience.
If there have been prior disputes, such as a workplace harassment case, it is also necessary to present circumstances or evidence demonstrating that subsequent personnel measures were taken for retaliatory purposes. The mere fact that the timing is close is not sufficient, and this should be kept in mind.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, it is important to document the business necessity of the transfer in the structure of “need to change staffing + rationality of selecting the particular employee.” As in this decision, where there are no separate consultation procedures in the personnel regulations or work rules, where the substance of wages, position, working hours, and job content is maintained, and where there is an established practice of transfers, the Labor Relations Commission is likely to regard the measure as an ordinary exercise of managerial prerogative.
Furthermore, even when the measure does not involve redundancy dismissal or large-scale workforce restructuring, if commuting difficulties are foreseeable due to personal circumstances such as childcare or health, employers should consider mitigation or supplementary measures (e.g., adjustment of working hours, additional support). This will help demonstrate efforts to “alleviate disadvantages in daily life” in the event of a dispute.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Existence of business necessity
There was a need to resolve the concurrent position of the Sinjeju Branch Director; the employer considered employees’ capabilities, workload, prior work experience, and interpersonal harmony; personnel transfers between the main center and the Sinjeju Branch could not be regarded as unusual; and there was insufficient basis to view the measure as retaliation for a workplace harassment incident that occurred in 2021. In light of these factors, the necessity of the transfer was recognized.
B. Degree of disadvantage in daily life and abuse of discretion
There were no changes in wages, position, or working hours before and after the transfer order; the employee continued to perform the same or similar duties as those handled at the main center, so there was no break in job continuity; and even if commuting distance increased somewhat and childcare became somewhat less convenient, these circumstances did not appear to “clearly exceed the level that employees are ordinarily expected to endure.”
C. Compliance with consultation procedures required under the principle of good faith
The work rules, personnel regulations, and employment contract of the welfare center contain no separate provisions prescribing a consultation procedure for personnel appointments; the foundation appears to have delegated personnel authority over welfare center staff comprehensively to the welfare center director; and the employee had not previously raised procedural objections to transfer measures. In light of these factors, the mere absence of a direct consultation procedure with the employee does not render the transfer order invalid.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Existence of business necessity
There was a need to resolve the concurrent position of the Sinjeju Branch Director; the employer considered employees’ capabilities, workload, prior work experience, and interpersonal harmony; personnel transfers between the main center and the Sinjeju Branch could not be regarded as unusual; and there was insufficient basis to view the measure as retaliation for a workplace harassment incident that occurred in 2021. In light of these factors, the necessity of the transfer was recognized.
B. Degree of disadvantage in daily life and abuse of discretion
There were no changes in wages, position, or working hours before and after the transfer order; the employee continued to perform the same or similar duties as those handled at the main center, so there was no break in job continuity; and even if commuting distance increased somewhat and childcare became somewhat less convenient, these circumstances did not appear to “clearly exceed the level that employees are ordinarily expected to endure.”
C. Compliance with consultation procedures required under the principle of good faith
The work rules, personnel regulations, and employment contract of the welfare center contain no separate provisions prescribing a consultation procedure for personnel appointments; the foundation appears to have delegated personnel authority over welfare center staff comprehensively to the welfare center director; and the employee had not previously raised procedural objections to transfer measures. In light of these factors, the mere absence of a direct consultation procedure with the employee does not render the transfer order invalid. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Expectation of Renewal (Refusal to Renew Contract of Security Guard)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Expression of Intention to Resign (Resignation Remark Made by Telephone)’”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, reasonableness of job transfer (Welfare Center Sinjeju Branch), transfer/relocation, workplace harassment, 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&.
※ The previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Expectation of Renewal (Refusal to Renew Contract of Security Guard)’,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to reasonableness of job transfer (Welfare Center Sinjeju Branch) can be found under “List of Decisions on Reasonableness of Job Transfer (Welfare Center Sinjeju Branch).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “reasonableness of job transfer (Welfare Center Sinjeju Branch).”
Decision Committee: Jeju Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae206 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2025.12.12 · Case Result: Dismissed
Summary of key issues:
A. Existence of business necessity
There was a need to resolve the concurrent position of the Sinjeju Branch Director; the employer took into account the employees’ capabilities, workload, prior work experience, and interpersonal harmony; personnel transfers between the main welfare center and the Sinjeju Branch could not be viewed as unusual; and there was insufficient basis to regard the transfer as retaliation for a workplace harassment incident that occurred in 2021. In light of these factors, the necessity of the transfer was recognized.
---
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, an employee working at a welfare center received a transfer order in the course of a personnel reshuffle aimed at resolving the concurrent position of the Sinjeju Branch Director. The employee filed an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission, arguing that the transfer constituted an unfair personnel measure equivalent to unfair dismissal.
The Jeju Regional Labor Relations Commission comprehensively reviewed the business necessity of the transfer, the degree of disadvantage to the employee’s daily life, and whether consultation procedures were observed, and ultimately ruled in favor of the employer. This decision also serves as an important reference for similar cases handled by Labor Law Firm Law&.
Ⅱ. Issues in Dispute
The issue in this case is:
“In a welfare center where there is no separate provision prescribing a consultation procedure, whether a transfer order issued on the grounds of resolving the concurrent position of the Sinjeju Branch Director and reallocating personnel satisfies the requirement of business necessity, and whether the increase in commuting distance, added childcare burden, and lack of consultation are sufficient to render the transfer invalid.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case found that there was a need to resolve the concurrent position of the Sinjeju Branch Director; that personnel assignments were made in consideration of employees’ capabilities, workload, work experience, and interpersonal relationships; and that personnel movements between the main welfare center and the Sinjeju Branch could not be regarded as an unusual practice. On this basis, the panel held that the transfer satisfied the requirement of business necessity.
In addition, the panel noted that there was no change in wages, position, or working hours before and after the transfer; that the employee continued to perform the same or similar duties as those previously handled at the main center, so there was no break in job continuity; and that, even if commuting distance increased somewhat and childcare became somewhat less convenient, these did not amount to disadvantages in daily life that “clearly exceed the level that employees are ordinarily expected to endure,” as articulated in Supreme Court precedents.
Furthermore, the work rules, personnel regulations, and employment contract contained no provisions requiring an individual consultation procedure for personnel appointments; the foundation appeared to have delegated personnel authority over welfare center staff comprehensively to the welfare center director; and the employee had not previously raised procedural objections to other transfers. Taking these circumstances together, the panel held that the mere fact that no direct consultation was conducted with the employee did not render the transfer order a violation of the principle of good faith or an abuse of rights.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s standpoint, to challenge a transfer as unfair, it is necessary to prepare concrete evidence showing that disadvantages to daily life—such as reductions in wages or position, serious commuting difficulties, or job discontinuity—clearly exceed the “range ordinarily to be endured” by employees, rather than amounting to mere inconvenience.
If there have been prior disputes, such as a workplace harassment case, it is also necessary to present circumstances or evidence demonstrating that subsequent personnel measures were taken for retaliatory purposes. The mere fact that the timing is close is not sufficient, and this should be kept in mind.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, it is important to document the business necessity of the transfer in the structure of “need to change staffing + rationality of selecting the particular employee.” As in this decision, where there are no separate consultation procedures in the personnel regulations or work rules, where the substance of wages, position, working hours, and job content is maintained, and where there is an established practice of transfers, the Labor Relations Commission is likely to regard the measure as an ordinary exercise of managerial prerogative.
Furthermore, even when the measure does not involve redundancy dismissal or large-scale workforce restructuring, if commuting difficulties are foreseeable due to personal circumstances such as childcare or health, employers should consider mitigation or supplementary measures (e.g., adjustment of working hours, additional support). This will help demonstrate efforts to “alleviate disadvantages in daily life” in the event of a dispute.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Existence of business necessity
There was a need to resolve the concurrent position of the Sinjeju Branch Director; the employer considered employees’ capabilities, workload, prior work experience, and interpersonal harmony; personnel transfers between the main center and the Sinjeju Branch could not be regarded as unusual; and there was insufficient basis to view the measure as retaliation for a workplace harassment incident that occurred in 2021. In light of these factors, the necessity of the transfer was recognized.
B. Degree of disadvantage in daily life and abuse of discretion
There were no changes in wages, position, or working hours before and after the transfer order; the employee continued to perform the same or similar duties as those handled at the main center, so there was no break in job continuity; and even if commuting distance increased somewhat and childcare became somewhat less convenient, these circumstances did not appear to “clearly exceed the level that employees are ordinarily expected to endure.”
C. Compliance with consultation procedures required under the principle of good faith
The work rules, personnel regulations, and employment contract of the welfare center contain no separate provisions prescribing a consultation procedure for personnel appointments; the foundation appears to have delegated personnel authority over welfare center staff comprehensively to the welfare center director; and the employee had not previously raised procedural objections to transfer measures. In light of these factors, the mere absence of a direct consultation procedure with the employee does not render the transfer order invalid.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Existence of business necessity
There was a need to resolve the concurrent position of the Sinjeju Branch Director; the employer considered employees’ capabilities, workload, prior work experience, and interpersonal harmony; personnel transfers between the main center and the Sinjeju Branch could not be regarded as unusual; and there was insufficient basis to view the measure as retaliation for a workplace harassment incident that occurred in 2021. In light of these factors, the necessity of the transfer was recognized.
B. Degree of disadvantage in daily life and abuse of discretion
There were no changes in wages, position, or working hours before and after the transfer order; the employee continued to perform the same or similar duties as those handled at the main center, so there was no break in job continuity; and even if commuting distance increased somewhat and childcare became somewhat less convenient, these circumstances did not appear to “clearly exceed the level that employees are ordinarily expected to endure.”
C. Compliance with consultation procedures required under the principle of good faith
The work rules, personnel regulations, and employment contract of the welfare center contain no separate provisions prescribing a consultation procedure for personnel appointments; the foundation appears to have delegated personnel authority over welfare center staff comprehensively to the welfare center director; and the employee had not previously raised procedural objections to transfer measures. In light of these factors, the mere absence of a direct consultation procedure with the employee does not render the transfer order invalid. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Expectation of Renewal (Refusal to Renew Contract of Security Guard)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Expression of Intention to Resign (Resignation Remark Made by Telephone)’”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, reasonableness of job transfer (Welfare Center Sinjeju Branch), transfer/relocation, workplace harassment, 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&.
※ The previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Expectation of Renewal (Refusal to Renew Contract of Security Guard)’,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to reasonableness of job transfer (Welfare Center Sinjeju Branch) can be found under “List of Decisions on Reasonableness of Job Transfer (Welfare Center Sinjeju Branch).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
