Corporate trends / Performance record
‘Justifiability of Transfer (Transfer Due to Workplace Harassment)’ – Unfair Dismissal Relief Case (Unfair Dismissal 236)
- Date2026/02/26 04:04
- Read 219
This case on the issue of “justifiability of transfer (transfer due to workplace harassment)” ended with a decision in favor of the employer (dismissal of the application).
Adjudicating Body: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission
Case No. 2025부해9642 ○ ○ ○ Application for Relief from Unfair Dismissal
Decision date: 2026.01.26 · Result: Dismissed
Summary of key issues:
A. Existence of business necessity: The employer implemented the transfer as a legal obligation pursuant to the deliberation and resolution of the Workplace Harassment Grievance Committee, and the transfer fell under an “exception to transfers within the same living area” under the Transfer Management Rules. Among the branches under the Incheon–Gyeonggi Regional Headquarters within the corporation, the only Grade A branch with a vacancy for a Branch Manager at General Grade 1 was the Goyang Ilsan Branch, so business necessity for this transfer was recognized.
B. Disadvantages in living conditions…
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, a worker serving as a branch manager was transferred pursuant to the deliberation and resolution of the Workplace Harassment Grievance Committee. The worker claimed that this transfer constituted an unfair personnel measure equivalent to unfair dismissal and filed an application for relief with the Labor Relations Commission.
The Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission focused its examination on whether the employer’s transfer order constituted an abuse of rights under the Labor Standards Act and whether it amounted to a personnel disadvantage equivalent to unfair dismissal. After the hearing, it dismissed the worker’s application for relief.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is:
“Whether a transfer implemented pursuant to a decision of the Workplace Harassment Grievance Committee constitutes an unfair transfer equivalent to unfair dismissal solely on the grounds that business necessity is insufficient, the disadvantages in living conditions are excessive, and the consultation procedure was not sufficiently carried out.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The adjudicating panel in this case noted that the employer was under a legal obligation to implement a transfer measure pursuant to the deliberation and resolution of the Workplace Harassment Grievance Committee; that the transfer fell under an “exception to transfers within the same living area” under the Transfer Management Rules; and that, among the branches under the Incheon–Gyeonggi Regional Headquarters within the corporation, the only Grade A branch with a vacancy for a Branch Manager at General Grade 1 (the worker’s position) was the Goyang Ilsan Branch. It further noted that the worker’s status and salary were maintained after the transfer, and although commuting time increased somewhat, it was difficult to view this as significantly exceeding the range that an ordinary worker must generally endure. It also took into account that the worker had been notified by phone of the planned transfer before it was implemented, and that, even if substantive consultation prior to the transfer was insufficient, that circumstance alone could not be deemed an abuse of rights.
In light of the above, the panel held that the transfer in this case met the Supreme Court’s criteria in that business necessity was recognized, the disadvantages in living conditions were not significant, and it was difficult to regard any procedural breach of the duty of good faith as serious. Accordingly, it found that the transfer did not constitute an unfair personnel measure in violation of Article 23(1) of the Labor Standards Act or an abuse of rights.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective)
From the worker’s perspective, for a transfer to be regarded as a personnel disadvantage equivalent to unfair dismissal, it is not sufficient merely to show that commuting distance increased or that consultation was inadequate. The worker must specifically prove that the asserted business necessity is merely formal or that the transfer is closer to retaliatory personnel action, and that the disadvantages in living conditions clearly exceed the range that workers are ordinarily expected to endure.
In addition, where a transfer is implemented pursuant to a decision of a Workplace Harassment Grievance Committee, it is important to comprehensively examine and challenge, as necessary, the legality of the committee’s composition and procedures, the reasonableness of its decision, and the fairness of the actual transfer targets and scope.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, for transfers and reassignments to be recognized as a legitimate exercise of managerial prerogative, it is important to establish internal standards in advance, such as Transfer Management Rules, and to document objective business necessities, including the need to maintain workplace order, prevent workplace harassment, and reallocate personnel.
In addition, operating mechanisms to mitigate disadvantages in living conditions—such as standards for transfers within and outside the same living area and support systems for long-distance commuters—and at least providing prior notice and conducting basic opinion-hearing procedures will greatly help reduce disputes over alleged violations of the duty of good faith.
In this type of case, both workers and companies should organize the facts and evidence around three main pillars—business necessity for the transfer, disadvantages in living conditions, and the consultation procedure—and respond to the Labor Relations Commission accordingly. It is advisable to seek early assistance from experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&, which has expertise in unfair dismissal, collective redundancies, and HR–labor disputes.
2. Matters Adjudicated
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Existence of Business Necessity
The employer implemented the transfer as a legal obligation to take transfer measures against the worker pursuant to the deliberation and resolution of the Workplace Harassment Grievance Committee. The transfer fell under an “exception to transfers within the same living area” under the Transfer Management Rules, and among the branches under the Incheon–Gyeonggi Regional Headquarters within the corporation, the only Grade A branch with a vacancy for a Branch Manager at General Grade 1 was the Goyang Ilsan Branch. Accordingly, business necessity for this transfer is recognized.
B. Existence of Disadvantages in Living Conditions
Even after the transfer, there was no change in the worker’s status or salary. Although commuting time increased somewhat, it was not to an impossible extent, and the employer operated systems to alleviate difficulties arising from long-distance commuting. Therefore, it is difficult to view the disadvantages in living conditions resulting from the transfer as significantly exceeding the degree that workers are ordinarily expected to endure.
C. Compliance with Consultation Procedures Required Under the Principle of Good Faith
Prior to issuing the transfer order, the employer notified the worker by phone of the planned transfer. Even if substantive consultation procedures were not carried out before the transfer, that circumstance alone does not render the transfer an abuse of rights that is automatically null and void.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Existence of Business Necessity
The employer implemented the transfer as a legal obligation to take transfer measures against the worker pursuant to the deliberation and resolution of the Workplace Harassment Grievance Committee. The transfer fell under an “exception to transfers within the same living area” under the Transfer Management Rules, and among the branches under the Incheon–Gyeonggi Regional Headquarters within the corporation, the only Grade A branch with a vacancy for a Branch Manager at General Grade 1 was the Goyang Ilsan Branch. Accordingly, business necessity for this transfer is recognized.
B. Existence of Disadvantages in Living Conditions
Even after the transfer, there was no change in the worker’s status or salary. Although commuting time increased somewhat, it was not to an impossible extent, and the employer operated systems to alleviate difficulties arising from long-distance commuting. Therefore, it is difficult to view the disadvantages in living conditions resulting from the transfer as significantly exceeding the degree that workers are ordinarily expected to endure.
C. Compliance with Consultation Procedures Required Under the Principle of Good Faith
Prior to issuing the transfer order, the employer notified the worker by phone of the planned transfer. Even if substantive consultation procedures were not carried out before the transfer, that circumstance alone does not render the transfer an abuse of rights that is automatically null and void.
/
[More Related Decisions]
- “‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision”
- “‘No Formation of Employment Contract (Absence of Offer Letter)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Decision date: – Case No.: Original decision upheld
- “‘Dismissal (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Decision date: – Case No.: Dismissed
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, justifiability of transfer (transfer due to workplace harassment), personnel 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 Labor Law Firm Law&’s “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series.
※ You can view the previous article, “‘Exclusion Period (Dispute over Date of Dismissal)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to justifiability of transfer (transfer due to workplace harassment) can be found under “List of Decisions on Justifiability of Transfer (Transfer Due to Workplace Harassment).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
Adjudicating Body: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission
Case No. 2025부해9642 ○ ○ ○ Application for Relief from Unfair Dismissal
Decision date: 2026.01.26 · Result: Dismissed
Summary of key issues:
A. Existence of business necessity: The employer implemented the transfer as a legal obligation pursuant to the deliberation and resolution of the Workplace Harassment Grievance Committee, and the transfer fell under an “exception to transfers within the same living area” under the Transfer Management Rules. Among the branches under the Incheon–Gyeonggi Regional Headquarters within the corporation, the only Grade A branch with a vacancy for a Branch Manager at General Grade 1 was the Goyang Ilsan Branch, so business necessity for this transfer was recognized.
B. Disadvantages in living conditions…
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, a worker serving as a branch manager was transferred pursuant to the deliberation and resolution of the Workplace Harassment Grievance Committee. The worker claimed that this transfer constituted an unfair personnel measure equivalent to unfair dismissal and filed an application for relief with the Labor Relations Commission.
The Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission focused its examination on whether the employer’s transfer order constituted an abuse of rights under the Labor Standards Act and whether it amounted to a personnel disadvantage equivalent to unfair dismissal. After the hearing, it dismissed the worker’s application for relief.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is:
“Whether a transfer implemented pursuant to a decision of the Workplace Harassment Grievance Committee constitutes an unfair transfer equivalent to unfair dismissal solely on the grounds that business necessity is insufficient, the disadvantages in living conditions are excessive, and the consultation procedure was not sufficiently carried out.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The adjudicating panel in this case noted that the employer was under a legal obligation to implement a transfer measure pursuant to the deliberation and resolution of the Workplace Harassment Grievance Committee; that the transfer fell under an “exception to transfers within the same living area” under the Transfer Management Rules; and that, among the branches under the Incheon–Gyeonggi Regional Headquarters within the corporation, the only Grade A branch with a vacancy for a Branch Manager at General Grade 1 (the worker’s position) was the Goyang Ilsan Branch. It further noted that the worker’s status and salary were maintained after the transfer, and although commuting time increased somewhat, it was difficult to view this as significantly exceeding the range that an ordinary worker must generally endure. It also took into account that the worker had been notified by phone of the planned transfer before it was implemented, and that, even if substantive consultation prior to the transfer was insufficient, that circumstance alone could not be deemed an abuse of rights.
In light of the above, the panel held that the transfer in this case met the Supreme Court’s criteria in that business necessity was recognized, the disadvantages in living conditions were not significant, and it was difficult to regard any procedural breach of the duty of good faith as serious. Accordingly, it found that the transfer did not constitute an unfair personnel measure in violation of Article 23(1) of the Labor Standards Act or an abuse of rights.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective)
From the worker’s perspective, for a transfer to be regarded as a personnel disadvantage equivalent to unfair dismissal, it is not sufficient merely to show that commuting distance increased or that consultation was inadequate. The worker must specifically prove that the asserted business necessity is merely formal or that the transfer is closer to retaliatory personnel action, and that the disadvantages in living conditions clearly exceed the range that workers are ordinarily expected to endure.
In addition, where a transfer is implemented pursuant to a decision of a Workplace Harassment Grievance Committee, it is important to comprehensively examine and challenge, as necessary, the legality of the committee’s composition and procedures, the reasonableness of its decision, and the fairness of the actual transfer targets and scope.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, for transfers and reassignments to be recognized as a legitimate exercise of managerial prerogative, it is important to establish internal standards in advance, such as Transfer Management Rules, and to document objective business necessities, including the need to maintain workplace order, prevent workplace harassment, and reallocate personnel.
In addition, operating mechanisms to mitigate disadvantages in living conditions—such as standards for transfers within and outside the same living area and support systems for long-distance commuters—and at least providing prior notice and conducting basic opinion-hearing procedures will greatly help reduce disputes over alleged violations of the duty of good faith.
In this type of case, both workers and companies should organize the facts and evidence around three main pillars—business necessity for the transfer, disadvantages in living conditions, and the consultation procedure—and respond to the Labor Relations Commission accordingly. It is advisable to seek early assistance from experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&, which has expertise in unfair dismissal, collective redundancies, and HR–labor disputes.
2. Matters Adjudicated
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Existence of Business Necessity
The employer implemented the transfer as a legal obligation to take transfer measures against the worker pursuant to the deliberation and resolution of the Workplace Harassment Grievance Committee. The transfer fell under an “exception to transfers within the same living area” under the Transfer Management Rules, and among the branches under the Incheon–Gyeonggi Regional Headquarters within the corporation, the only Grade A branch with a vacancy for a Branch Manager at General Grade 1 was the Goyang Ilsan Branch. Accordingly, business necessity for this transfer is recognized.
B. Existence of Disadvantages in Living Conditions
Even after the transfer, there was no change in the worker’s status or salary. Although commuting time increased somewhat, it was not to an impossible extent, and the employer operated systems to alleviate difficulties arising from long-distance commuting. Therefore, it is difficult to view the disadvantages in living conditions resulting from the transfer as significantly exceeding the degree that workers are ordinarily expected to endure.
C. Compliance with Consultation Procedures Required Under the Principle of Good Faith
Prior to issuing the transfer order, the employer notified the worker by phone of the planned transfer. Even if substantive consultation procedures were not carried out before the transfer, that circumstance alone does not render the transfer an abuse of rights that is automatically null and void.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Existence of Business Necessity
The employer implemented the transfer as a legal obligation to take transfer measures against the worker pursuant to the deliberation and resolution of the Workplace Harassment Grievance Committee. The transfer fell under an “exception to transfers within the same living area” under the Transfer Management Rules, and among the branches under the Incheon–Gyeonggi Regional Headquarters within the corporation, the only Grade A branch with a vacancy for a Branch Manager at General Grade 1 was the Goyang Ilsan Branch. Accordingly, business necessity for this transfer is recognized.
B. Existence of Disadvantages in Living Conditions
Even after the transfer, there was no change in the worker’s status or salary. Although commuting time increased somewhat, it was not to an impossible extent, and the employer operated systems to alleviate difficulties arising from long-distance commuting. Therefore, it is difficult to view the disadvantages in living conditions resulting from the transfer as significantly exceeding the degree that workers are ordinarily expected to endure.
C. Compliance with Consultation Procedures Required Under the Principle of Good Faith
Prior to issuing the transfer order, the employer notified the worker by phone of the planned transfer. Even if substantive consultation procedures were not carried out before the transfer, that circumstance alone does not render the transfer an abuse of rights that is automatically null and void.
/
[More Related Decisions]
- “‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision”
- “‘No Formation of Employment Contract (Absence of Offer Letter)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Decision date: – Case No.: Original decision upheld
- “‘Dismissal (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Decision date: – Case No.: Dismissed
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, justifiability of transfer (transfer due to workplace harassment), personnel 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 Labor Law Firm Law&’s “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series.
※ You can view the previous article, “‘Exclusion Period (Dispute over Date of Dismissal)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to justifiability of transfer (transfer due to workplace harassment) can be found under “List of Decisions on Justifiability of Transfer (Transfer Due to Workplace Harassment).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
