Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Case on Transfer and Disadvantageous Personnel Action (Assignment to Central Supply Room After Return from Sick Leave and Childcare Leave) (Unfair Dismissal 254)
- Date2026/03/04 04:04
- Read 195
[Case Information]
This case is a precedent in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “transfer and disadvantageous personnel action (assignment to the central supply room after return from sick leave and childcare leave).”
Adjudicating body: Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025 Unfair Dismissal 9115 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.01.16 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issue: Where a worker returned from sick leave and the employer issued a personnel order on 8 November 2025 assigning the worker to the central supply room, which was the same work that had been assigned upon the worker’s return following the end of childcare leave on 1 August 2025, it is difficult to view this as a newly imposed disadvantageous measure. Accordingly, it cannot be regarded as “unfair dismissal, etc.” under Article 23(1) of the Labor Standards Act and therefore does not fall within the scope of matters subject to a remedy application.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This case is an application for remedy for unfair dismissal that arose where a worker, after completing childcare leave and returning to work, was assigned to duties in the central supply room, and, after subsequently taking sick leave and returning again, received a personnel order assigning the worker to the same central supply room.
The worker argued that the personnel order upon the second return constituted a new disadvantageous measure. However, the Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission found it difficult to regard this as unfair dismissal, etc., and dismissed the worker’s application for remedy.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether the employer’s assignment of the worker to the central supply room upon return from sick leave—where the same duties had already been assigned upon the worker’s return following the end of childcare leave—constitutes a new disadvantageous personnel measure falling under “unfair dismissal, etc.” as set out in Article 23(1) of the Labor Standards Act.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The adjudicating panel in this case noted that: (i) the content of the personnel order issued by the employer on 8 November 2025 was identical to the central supply room duties that had already been assigned when the worker returned to work following the end of childcare leave on 1 August 2025; (ii) it was difficult to find that any additional or qualitatively different disadvantage newly arose for the worker as a result of the personnel order; and (iii) “unfair dismissal, etc.” under Article 23(1) of the Labor Standards Act targets new disadvantageous measures such as dismissal, suspension from duty, disciplinary suspension, transfer, etc., and a mere reassignment to the same duties does not fall within this category.
Accordingly, the Commission held that the personnel order in question was difficult to regard as a newly imposed disadvantageous measure against the worker and therefore did not constitute “unfair dismissal, etc.” As such, it was not a matter subject to an application for remedy before the Labor Relations Commission.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective)
From the worker’s perspective, it should be borne in mind that, absent special circumstances, a personnel measure that reassigns the worker, upon return from leave, to a position or department that had already been assigned previously does not immediately constitute “unfair dismissal, etc.”
If a worker wishes to challenge a personnel order, it is important to set out and substantiate in concrete terms whether the measure is a simple reassignment, or whether it is a new disadvantageous personnel action that substantially worsens wages, rank, or working environment, and whether there was any discriminatory or retaliatory motive in the process.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, when a worker returns from leave such as sick leave or childcare leave, it is helpful for dispute prevention to assign the worker, in principle, within a scope similar to the duties held prior to the leave or already assigned upon a prior return.
It is also advisable to clearly distinguish in writing whether a personnel order is a mere reassignment to the same duties, or a transfer or reassignment that causes substantial disadvantage to the worker’s wages, status, or working conditions, and to retain objective grounds and records so that, in disputes relating to unfair dismissal or disadvantageous personnel actions, the Labor Relations Commission can properly assess the situation.
This precedent once again confirms the criteria for determining when a post-leave return assignment remains within the bounds of a “legitimate exercise of managerial prerogative” and when it is to be evaluated as a disadvantageous personnel action constituting “unfair dismissal, etc.” With respect to personnel management involving leave and return to work, it is desirable for both workers and employers to obtain advice in advance from specialized institutions such as Labor Law Firm Law& and to establish appropriate standards and procedures.
2. Matters Adjudicated
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
Where a worker returned from sick leave and the employer issued a personnel order on 8 November 2025, the assignment was identical to the central supply room duties that had been granted upon the worker’s return following the end of childcare leave on 1 August 2025. Therefore, it is difficult to regard this as a newly imposed disadvantageous measure against the worker, and it cannot be viewed as falling under “unfair dismissal, etc.” as stipulated in Article 23(1) of the Labor Standards Act. Accordingly, it does not constitute a matter subject to an application for remedy.
3. Gist of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
Where a worker returned from sick leave and the employer issued a personnel order on 8 November 2025, the assignment was identical to the central supply room duties that had been granted upon the worker’s return following the end of childcare leave on 1 August 2025. Therefore, it is difficult to regard this as a newly imposed disadvantageous measure against the worker, and it cannot be viewed as falling under “unfair dismissal, etc.” as stipulated in Article 23(1) of the Labor Standards Act. Accordingly, it does not constitute a matter subject to an application for remedy. /
[See More Related Precedents]
- “‘Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Case” – Date of decision: - Case result: First-instance decision upheld
- “‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark Made by Telephone)’ Unfair Dismissal Case”
- “‘Dismissal (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’ Unfair Dismissal Case” – Date of decision: - Case result: Dismissed
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, transfer and disadvantageous personnel action (assignment to central supply room after return from sick leave and childcare leave), 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 Case Law” series.
※ You can view the previous article, “‘Employer Status (Contract Worker of a Subcontractor)’ Unfair Dismissal Case,” in a new window.
※ A list of precedents related to transfer and disadvantageous personnel action (assignment to central supply room after return from sick leave and childcare leave) can be viewed together under “List of Precedents on Transfer and Disadvantageous Personnel Action (Assignment to Central Supply Room After Return from Sick Leave and Childcare Leave).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a precedent in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “transfer and disadvantageous personnel action (assignment to the central supply room after return from sick leave and childcare leave).”
Adjudicating body: Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025 Unfair Dismissal 9115 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.01.16 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issue: Where a worker returned from sick leave and the employer issued a personnel order on 8 November 2025 assigning the worker to the central supply room, which was the same work that had been assigned upon the worker’s return following the end of childcare leave on 1 August 2025, it is difficult to view this as a newly imposed disadvantageous measure. Accordingly, it cannot be regarded as “unfair dismissal, etc.” under Article 23(1) of the Labor Standards Act and therefore does not fall within the scope of matters subject to a remedy application.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This case is an application for remedy for unfair dismissal that arose where a worker, after completing childcare leave and returning to work, was assigned to duties in the central supply room, and, after subsequently taking sick leave and returning again, received a personnel order assigning the worker to the same central supply room.
The worker argued that the personnel order upon the second return constituted a new disadvantageous measure. However, the Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission found it difficult to regard this as unfair dismissal, etc., and dismissed the worker’s application for remedy.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether the employer’s assignment of the worker to the central supply room upon return from sick leave—where the same duties had already been assigned upon the worker’s return following the end of childcare leave—constitutes a new disadvantageous personnel measure falling under “unfair dismissal, etc.” as set out in Article 23(1) of the Labor Standards Act.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The adjudicating panel in this case noted that: (i) the content of the personnel order issued by the employer on 8 November 2025 was identical to the central supply room duties that had already been assigned when the worker returned to work following the end of childcare leave on 1 August 2025; (ii) it was difficult to find that any additional or qualitatively different disadvantage newly arose for the worker as a result of the personnel order; and (iii) “unfair dismissal, etc.” under Article 23(1) of the Labor Standards Act targets new disadvantageous measures such as dismissal, suspension from duty, disciplinary suspension, transfer, etc., and a mere reassignment to the same duties does not fall within this category.
Accordingly, the Commission held that the personnel order in question was difficult to regard as a newly imposed disadvantageous measure against the worker and therefore did not constitute “unfair dismissal, etc.” As such, it was not a matter subject to an application for remedy before the Labor Relations Commission.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective)
From the worker’s perspective, it should be borne in mind that, absent special circumstances, a personnel measure that reassigns the worker, upon return from leave, to a position or department that had already been assigned previously does not immediately constitute “unfair dismissal, etc.”
If a worker wishes to challenge a personnel order, it is important to set out and substantiate in concrete terms whether the measure is a simple reassignment, or whether it is a new disadvantageous personnel action that substantially worsens wages, rank, or working environment, and whether there was any discriminatory or retaliatory motive in the process.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, when a worker returns from leave such as sick leave or childcare leave, it is helpful for dispute prevention to assign the worker, in principle, within a scope similar to the duties held prior to the leave or already assigned upon a prior return.
It is also advisable to clearly distinguish in writing whether a personnel order is a mere reassignment to the same duties, or a transfer or reassignment that causes substantial disadvantage to the worker’s wages, status, or working conditions, and to retain objective grounds and records so that, in disputes relating to unfair dismissal or disadvantageous personnel actions, the Labor Relations Commission can properly assess the situation.
This precedent once again confirms the criteria for determining when a post-leave return assignment remains within the bounds of a “legitimate exercise of managerial prerogative” and when it is to be evaluated as a disadvantageous personnel action constituting “unfair dismissal, etc.” With respect to personnel management involving leave and return to work, it is desirable for both workers and employers to obtain advice in advance from specialized institutions such as Labor Law Firm Law& and to establish appropriate standards and procedures.
2. Matters Adjudicated
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
Where a worker returned from sick leave and the employer issued a personnel order on 8 November 2025, the assignment was identical to the central supply room duties that had been granted upon the worker’s return following the end of childcare leave on 1 August 2025. Therefore, it is difficult to regard this as a newly imposed disadvantageous measure against the worker, and it cannot be viewed as falling under “unfair dismissal, etc.” as stipulated in Article 23(1) of the Labor Standards Act. Accordingly, it does not constitute a matter subject to an application for remedy.
3. Gist of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
Where a worker returned from sick leave and the employer issued a personnel order on 8 November 2025, the assignment was identical to the central supply room duties that had been granted upon the worker’s return following the end of childcare leave on 1 August 2025. Therefore, it is difficult to regard this as a newly imposed disadvantageous measure against the worker, and it cannot be viewed as falling under “unfair dismissal, etc.” as stipulated in Article 23(1) of the Labor Standards Act. Accordingly, it does not constitute a matter subject to an application for remedy. /
[See More Related Precedents]
- “‘Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Case” – Date of decision: - Case result: First-instance decision upheld
- “‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark Made by Telephone)’ Unfair Dismissal Case”
- “‘Dismissal (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’ Unfair Dismissal Case” – Date of decision: - Case result: Dismissed
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, transfer and disadvantageous personnel action (assignment to central supply room after return from sick leave and childcare leave), 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 Case Law” series.
※ You can view the previous article, “‘Employer Status (Contract Worker of a Subcontractor)’ Unfair Dismissal Case,” in a new window.
※ A list of precedents related to transfer and disadvantageous personnel action (assignment to central supply room after return from sick leave and childcare leave) can be viewed together under “List of Precedents on Transfer and Disadvantageous Personnel Action (Assignment to Central Supply Room After Return from Sick Leave and Childcare Leave).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
