Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Decision on “Legitimacy of Transfer (Transfer of Workplace Harassment Perpetrator)” (Unfair Dismissal 250)
- Date2026/03/02 04:13
- Read 295
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “legitimacy of transfer (transfer of workplace harassment perpetrator).”
Decision body: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae9727 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.01.19 · Case result: Dismissed
Key issue summary: a.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employee applied to the Labor Relations Commission for a remedy, claiming that the transfer and the “no-record warning” (불문경고) imposed on him/her constituted an unfair dismissal. The Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission focused on whether, in a situation where workplace harassment was found to have occurred, the employer’s transfer and disciplinary measures taken pursuant to the rules of employment and the workplace harassment prevention and response guidelines were legitimate.
The Commission ultimately found both the transfer and the no-record warning to be justified and dismissed the employee’s application for remedy.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is:
“When an employer imposes a transfer and a no-record warning (discipline) on an employee found to be a perpetrator of workplace harassment, whether such measures constitute a legitimate exercise of managerial authority in terms of business necessity, the degree of disadvantage in the employee’s personal life, consultation procedures, grounds for discipline, level of sanction, and procedure—or whether they amount to an unfair dismissal or other disadvantageous measure.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case held that workplace harassment had in fact occurred, that the employer carried out the transfer pursuant to the rules of employment and the workplace harassment prevention and response guidelines, and that the employer conducted interviews with the employee in the course of the transfer, thereby complying with the consultation procedures required under the principle of good faith. In light of these factors, the panel found that the transfer was supported by business necessity.
The panel also considered that, although the employee’s commuting time increased and his/her wages decreased as a result of the transfer, the extent of such changes could not be regarded as significantly exceeding the level that an employee is ordinarily expected to bear, and it was difficult to find that the employer was under an obligation to take additional measures to mitigate any disadvantage.
With respect to the disciplinary measure, the panel found that, among the multiple grounds cited by the employer, workplace harassment constituted a legitimate ground for discipline; that, in light of the employee’s contributions, the originally contemplated reprimand (견책) was reduced to a no-record warning; that, compared with similar disciplinary cases, the level of sanction could not be considered excessive; and that the procedural requirements were satisfied by providing the employee with an opportunity to explain his/her position and by notifying the employee in writing of the resolution of the High Disciplinary Committee. On this basis, the panel concluded that the disciplinary authority had not been exercised in an arbitrary or abusive manner.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, even if a transfer or disciplinary measure is unsatisfactory, it does not automatically constitute an unfair dismissal or unfair personnel action. The Labor Relations Commission and the courts comprehensively consider business necessity for the transfer, the degree of disadvantage in the employee’s personal life, and compliance with consultation procedures, and they strictly assess whether the disadvantage in personal life “significantly exceeds the level ordinarily to be borne.”
In particular, if there have been words or conduct that may be recognized as workplace harassment, such conduct can itself support both the grounds for discipline and the business necessity for transfer. Employees should therefore exercise particular care in their relationships and communications with colleagues and subordinates, as well as in messenger and email records. When given an opportunity to explain during disciplinary proceedings, it is important to submit specific rebuttals and extenuating circumstances based on the facts and relevant rules, rather than merely offering emotional objections.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, in order to prevent personnel orders such as transfers, reassignment, or placement on standby from developing into disputes over unfair dismissal, it is essential to continuously review the three pillars of business necessity, disadvantage in the employee’s personal life, and consultation procedures. In particular, transfer measures against perpetrators in workplace harassment cases must be based on the rules of employment and the workplace harassment prevention and response guidelines, and it is helpful for dispute prevention to document the pre- and post-transfer job duties and work locations, changes in wages, and changes in commuting time.
For disciplinary measures, the employer should clearly confirm whether the grounds for discipline fall within those stipulated in the rules of employment, collective agreements, etc., and should substantively—not merely formally—comply with procedures such as convening a disciplinary committee, providing an opportunity for explanation, and issuing resolutions and notices. It is also advisable to determine the level of sanction in consideration of consistency with similar cases and to keep records showing that mitigating factors (such as contributions, work attitude, and likelihood of recurrence) have been reviewed. Such records can serve as important defensive materials when the issue of abuse of disciplinary discretion is contested before the Labor Relations Commission.
This decision illustrates that transfers and disciplinary measures in workplace harassment cases are not automatically evaluated as unfair dismissal, and that where “business necessity,” “disadvantage in personal life,” and “compliance with procedure” are appropriately balanced, the employer’s actions can be found legitimate even in dispute types frequently handled by Labor Law Firm Law&. To prevent and respond to disputes before the Labor Relations Commission, employers should systematically maintain relevant rules and factual records from before any incident arises.
2. Matters Decided
a. Case Overview and Procedural History
a. Legitimacy of the Transfer (Existence of Business Necessity, Degree of Disadvantage in Personal Life, and Compliance with Consultation Procedures Required Under the Principle of Good Faith)
① As workplace harassment was found to have occurred, the employer’s transfer of the employee pursuant to the rules of employment and the workplace harassment prevention and response guidelines was recognized as supported by business necessity;
② Although commuting time increased and wages decreased, the extent of such changes could not be deemed to be at a level that the employee could not reasonably endure, and thus the disadvantage in personal life could not be regarded as exceeding the level ordinarily to be borne by an employee; and
③ As the employer conducted interviews with the employee in relation to the transfer and thereby complied with the consultation procedures required under the principle of good faith, the transfer was legitimate.
b. Legitimacy of the No-Record Warning (Grounds, Level of Sanction, and Procedure)
① Of the two grounds for discipline cited by the employer, workplace harassment constituted a legitimate ground for discipline;
② In consideration of the employee’s contributions, the sanction was reduced from a reprimand to a no-record warning, and, compared with similar disciplinary cases, the level of sanction was not excessive and therefore did not constitute an arbitrary or abusive exercise of disciplinary authority; and
③ As the employee was given an opportunity to explain his/her position and the resolution of the High Disciplinary Committee was notified in writing, there was no procedural defect.
3. Summary of the Decision
a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
a. Legitimacy of the Transfer (Existence of Business Necessity, Degree of Disadvantage in Personal Life, and Compliance with Consultation Procedures Required Under the Principle of Good Faith)
① As workplace harassment was found to have occurred, the employer’s transfer of the employee pursuant to the rules of employment and the workplace harassment prevention and response guidelines was recognized as supported by business necessity;
② Although commuting time increased and wages decreased, the extent of such changes could not be deemed to be at a level that the employee could not reasonably endure, and thus the disadvantage in personal life could not be regarded as exceeding the level ordinarily to be borne by an employee; and
③ As the employer conducted interviews with the employee in relation to the transfer and thereby complied with the consultation procedures required under the principle of good faith, the transfer was legitimate.
b. Legitimacy of the No-Record Warning (Grounds, Level of Sanction, and Procedure)
① Of the two grounds for discipline cited by the employer, workplace harassment constituted a legitimate ground for discipline;
② In consideration of the employee’s contributions, the sanction was reduced from a reprimand to a no-record warning, and, compared with similar disciplinary cases, the level of sanction was not excessive and therefore did not constitute an arbitrary or abusive exercise of disciplinary authority; and
③ As the employee was given an opportunity to explain his/her position and the resolution of the High Disciplinary Committee was notified in writing, there was no procedural defect. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Excessive Level of Disciplinary Sanction (Farm Management · Quarantine Case)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Probationary Period · Refusal to Confirm Employment (Smoking in Non-Smoking Area)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, legitimacy of transfer (transfer of workplace harassment perpetrator), workplace harassment, personnel order · transfer, discipline (reprimand · warning), 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 on ‘Probationary Period · Refusal to Confirm Employment (Smoking in Non-Smoking Area)’,” in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to legitimacy of transfer (transfer of workplace harassment perpetrator) can be found in the “Legitimacy of Transfer (Transfer of Workplace Harassment Perpetrator) Related Decisions” list.
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “legitimacy of transfer (transfer of workplace harassment perpetrator).”
Decision body: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae9727 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.01.19 · Case result: Dismissed
Key issue summary: a.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employee applied to the Labor Relations Commission for a remedy, claiming that the transfer and the “no-record warning” (불문경고) imposed on him/her constituted an unfair dismissal. The Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission focused on whether, in a situation where workplace harassment was found to have occurred, the employer’s transfer and disciplinary measures taken pursuant to the rules of employment and the workplace harassment prevention and response guidelines were legitimate.
The Commission ultimately found both the transfer and the no-record warning to be justified and dismissed the employee’s application for remedy.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is:
“When an employer imposes a transfer and a no-record warning (discipline) on an employee found to be a perpetrator of workplace harassment, whether such measures constitute a legitimate exercise of managerial authority in terms of business necessity, the degree of disadvantage in the employee’s personal life, consultation procedures, grounds for discipline, level of sanction, and procedure—or whether they amount to an unfair dismissal or other disadvantageous measure.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case held that workplace harassment had in fact occurred, that the employer carried out the transfer pursuant to the rules of employment and the workplace harassment prevention and response guidelines, and that the employer conducted interviews with the employee in the course of the transfer, thereby complying with the consultation procedures required under the principle of good faith. In light of these factors, the panel found that the transfer was supported by business necessity.
The panel also considered that, although the employee’s commuting time increased and his/her wages decreased as a result of the transfer, the extent of such changes could not be regarded as significantly exceeding the level that an employee is ordinarily expected to bear, and it was difficult to find that the employer was under an obligation to take additional measures to mitigate any disadvantage.
With respect to the disciplinary measure, the panel found that, among the multiple grounds cited by the employer, workplace harassment constituted a legitimate ground for discipline; that, in light of the employee’s contributions, the originally contemplated reprimand (견책) was reduced to a no-record warning; that, compared with similar disciplinary cases, the level of sanction could not be considered excessive; and that the procedural requirements were satisfied by providing the employee with an opportunity to explain his/her position and by notifying the employee in writing of the resolution of the High Disciplinary Committee. On this basis, the panel concluded that the disciplinary authority had not been exercised in an arbitrary or abusive manner.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, even if a transfer or disciplinary measure is unsatisfactory, it does not automatically constitute an unfair dismissal or unfair personnel action. The Labor Relations Commission and the courts comprehensively consider business necessity for the transfer, the degree of disadvantage in the employee’s personal life, and compliance with consultation procedures, and they strictly assess whether the disadvantage in personal life “significantly exceeds the level ordinarily to be borne.”
In particular, if there have been words or conduct that may be recognized as workplace harassment, such conduct can itself support both the grounds for discipline and the business necessity for transfer. Employees should therefore exercise particular care in their relationships and communications with colleagues and subordinates, as well as in messenger and email records. When given an opportunity to explain during disciplinary proceedings, it is important to submit specific rebuttals and extenuating circumstances based on the facts and relevant rules, rather than merely offering emotional objections.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, in order to prevent personnel orders such as transfers, reassignment, or placement on standby from developing into disputes over unfair dismissal, it is essential to continuously review the three pillars of business necessity, disadvantage in the employee’s personal life, and consultation procedures. In particular, transfer measures against perpetrators in workplace harassment cases must be based on the rules of employment and the workplace harassment prevention and response guidelines, and it is helpful for dispute prevention to document the pre- and post-transfer job duties and work locations, changes in wages, and changes in commuting time.
For disciplinary measures, the employer should clearly confirm whether the grounds for discipline fall within those stipulated in the rules of employment, collective agreements, etc., and should substantively—not merely formally—comply with procedures such as convening a disciplinary committee, providing an opportunity for explanation, and issuing resolutions and notices. It is also advisable to determine the level of sanction in consideration of consistency with similar cases and to keep records showing that mitigating factors (such as contributions, work attitude, and likelihood of recurrence) have been reviewed. Such records can serve as important defensive materials when the issue of abuse of disciplinary discretion is contested before the Labor Relations Commission.
This decision illustrates that transfers and disciplinary measures in workplace harassment cases are not automatically evaluated as unfair dismissal, and that where “business necessity,” “disadvantage in personal life,” and “compliance with procedure” are appropriately balanced, the employer’s actions can be found legitimate even in dispute types frequently handled by Labor Law Firm Law&. To prevent and respond to disputes before the Labor Relations Commission, employers should systematically maintain relevant rules and factual records from before any incident arises.
2. Matters Decided
a. Case Overview and Procedural History
a. Legitimacy of the Transfer (Existence of Business Necessity, Degree of Disadvantage in Personal Life, and Compliance with Consultation Procedures Required Under the Principle of Good Faith)
① As workplace harassment was found to have occurred, the employer’s transfer of the employee pursuant to the rules of employment and the workplace harassment prevention and response guidelines was recognized as supported by business necessity;
② Although commuting time increased and wages decreased, the extent of such changes could not be deemed to be at a level that the employee could not reasonably endure, and thus the disadvantage in personal life could not be regarded as exceeding the level ordinarily to be borne by an employee; and
③ As the employer conducted interviews with the employee in relation to the transfer and thereby complied with the consultation procedures required under the principle of good faith, the transfer was legitimate.
b. Legitimacy of the No-Record Warning (Grounds, Level of Sanction, and Procedure)
① Of the two grounds for discipline cited by the employer, workplace harassment constituted a legitimate ground for discipline;
② In consideration of the employee’s contributions, the sanction was reduced from a reprimand to a no-record warning, and, compared with similar disciplinary cases, the level of sanction was not excessive and therefore did not constitute an arbitrary or abusive exercise of disciplinary authority; and
③ As the employee was given an opportunity to explain his/her position and the resolution of the High Disciplinary Committee was notified in writing, there was no procedural defect.
3. Summary of the Decision
a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
a. Legitimacy of the Transfer (Existence of Business Necessity, Degree of Disadvantage in Personal Life, and Compliance with Consultation Procedures Required Under the Principle of Good Faith)
① As workplace harassment was found to have occurred, the employer’s transfer of the employee pursuant to the rules of employment and the workplace harassment prevention and response guidelines was recognized as supported by business necessity;
② Although commuting time increased and wages decreased, the extent of such changes could not be deemed to be at a level that the employee could not reasonably endure, and thus the disadvantage in personal life could not be regarded as exceeding the level ordinarily to be borne by an employee; and
③ As the employer conducted interviews with the employee in relation to the transfer and thereby complied with the consultation procedures required under the principle of good faith, the transfer was legitimate.
b. Legitimacy of the No-Record Warning (Grounds, Level of Sanction, and Procedure)
① Of the two grounds for discipline cited by the employer, workplace harassment constituted a legitimate ground for discipline;
② In consideration of the employee’s contributions, the sanction was reduced from a reprimand to a no-record warning, and, compared with similar disciplinary cases, the level of sanction was not excessive and therefore did not constitute an arbitrary or abusive exercise of disciplinary authority; and
③ As the employee was given an opportunity to explain his/her position and the resolution of the High Disciplinary Committee was notified in writing, there was no procedural defect. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Excessive Level of Disciplinary Sanction (Farm Management · Quarantine Case)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Probationary Period · Refusal to Confirm Employment (Smoking in Non-Smoking Area)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, legitimacy of transfer (transfer of workplace harassment perpetrator), workplace harassment, personnel order · transfer, discipline (reprimand · warning), 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 on ‘Probationary Period · Refusal to Confirm Employment (Smoking in Non-Smoking Area)’,” in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to legitimacy of transfer (transfer of workplace harassment perpetrator) can be found in the “Legitimacy of Transfer (Transfer of Workplace Harassment Perpetrator) Related Decisions” list.
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
