Corporate trends / Performance record
Decision on Unfair Dismissal Relating to “Justifiability of Transfer (Outsourcing of Design Work)” (Unfair Dismissal 279)
- Date2026/03/13 04:09
- Read 249
[Case Information]
This case is a decision that was concluded by upholding the first-instance ruling on the issue of “justifiability of transfer (outsourcing of design work).”
Decision Committee: Central Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae1422 ○ ○ ○ Application for Re‑examination for Remedy of Unfair Dismissal
2026.01.13 · Case Result: First‑instance decision upheld
Summary of Key Issues:
A. Whether there was a business necessity for the transfer
From the perspective of rational business operation, the business necessity of the transfer can be recognized in that: (1) the work performed by the employee was reduced through outsourcing, thereby diminishing the need to continuously assign design work; (2) due to the reduced workload, amicable relationships were not formed with team members and the employee’s performance evaluations were poor; (3) there was a need to have the employee experience other duties to improve work capabilities and personnel evaluations; (4) personnel orders fall within the employer’s authority over personnel matters, and it is in principle necessary to recognize the employer’s discretion regarding transfers; in light of all these circumstances, the business necessity of the transfer in this case was recognized.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this re‑examination case for remedy of unfair dismissal, the core issue before the Labor Relations Commission was whether the transfer (change of duties and workplace) imposed on an employee in charge of design work constituted a legitimate exercise of managerial prerogative, and whether it amounted to unfair dismissal and unfair transfer. The Central Labor Relations Commission upheld the first‑instance conclusion and focused its review on whether the employer’s transfer order constituted an abuse of rights under the Labor Standards Act.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether, in a situation where design work has been outsourced and reduced, a transfer involving changes to workplace and duties but no change in wages constitutes a legitimate exercise of managerial prerogative when comprehensively considering business necessity, disadvantages to the employee’s living conditions, and whether consultation procedures were followed.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case found that there was a need for personnel reallocation for rational business operation; that the employee’s existing design work had been significantly reduced through outsourcing and other means, thereby diminishing the need to continue assigning the same work; that, due to deteriorated relationships within the team and poor performance evaluations, it was necessary to seek improvement in capabilities and personnel evaluations by having the employee experience other duties; and that personnel orders in principle fall within the employer’s discretion. In light of these factors, the panel held that the business necessity of the transfer was established.
The panel further noted that the employee’s wage level before and after the transfer remained the same, so there was no significant economic disadvantage; that the change in workplace did not result in a substantial difference in commuting time; and that the mere discontinuation of previously provided parking support did not, in itself, constitute a disadvantage to living conditions that clearly exceeded the range ordinarily to be endured. On this basis, the panel determined that the disadvantages to living conditions were not so great as to outweigh the business necessity.
In addition, the panel found that the employer had conducted consultation procedures regarding the transfer on two occasions; that the mere fact that the employee did not agree did not mean that the consultation procedures required under the principle of good faith were violated; and that Supreme Court precedents do not consider the mere failure to consult in cases of transfer or reassignment to constitute an abuse of rights. Taking all of this into account, the panel held that the transfer in this case did not constitute an unfair transfer in violation of Article 23(1) of the Labor Standards Act or an abuse of rights.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s standpoint, in order to challenge a transfer or reassignment as unfair, it is not sufficient to rely solely on the fact that it is an “undesired personnel order.” The employee must prove with specific evidence that there is an objective lack of business necessity, or that the disadvantages to living conditions clearly exceed the range ordinarily to be endured. In particular, it is important to organize and document actual disadvantages—such as changes in wages, commuting time, job difficulty, and health impact—with figures and facts, and, if there was a complete lack of explanation or consultation during the transfer process, to preserve evidence of this through emails, recordings, and the like.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, to secure the justifiability of transfers and reassignments, first, the necessity of changes in personnel allocation and the rational reasons for selecting the particular employee as the subject of the transfer should be documented. Second, changes in wages, workplace, and benefits should be reviewed so that disadvantages to living conditions are not excessive, and, if necessary, supplementary measures such as commuting support or allowances should be considered. Third, by consulting with a specialized institution such as Labor Law Firm Law&, and, prior to the transfer, explaining to the employee on at least one or two occasions the reasons and timing of the transfer and possible alternatives, and recording this consultation process in writing or minutes, employers can significantly reduce the risk of disputes before the Labor Relations Commission.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Whether there was a business necessity for the transfer
From the perspective of rational business operation, the business necessity of the transfer can be recognized in that: (1) the work performed by the employee was reduced through outsourcing and other means, thereby diminishing the need to continuously assign design work; (2) due to the reduced workload, amicable relationships were not formed with team members and the employee’s performance evaluations were poor; (3) there was a need to have the employee experience other duties to improve work capabilities and personnel evaluations; and (4) personnel orders fall within the employer’s authority over personnel matters, and it is in principle necessary to recognize the employer’s discretion regarding transfers. Taken together, the business necessity of the transfer in this case is recognized.
B. Whether there were disadvantages to living conditions
(1) The wage level before and after the transfer was the same, making it difficult to find that any economic disadvantage arose; (2) there was no significant difference in commuting time resulting from the change in workplace; and (3) the discontinuation of previously provided parking support does not, in itself, constitute a substantial disadvantage to living conditions. Accordingly, it is difficult to find that the disadvantages to living conditions resulting from the transfer exceeded the degree to be endured in light of the business necessity.
C. Whether consultation procedures required under the principle of good faith were observed
The employer conducted consultation procedures regarding the transfer on two occasions, and it is difficult to find any procedural defect in the transfer merely because the employee did not agree.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Whether there was a business necessity for the transfer
From the perspective of rational business operation, the business necessity of the transfer can be recognized in that: (1) the work performed by the employee was reduced through outsourcing and other means, thereby diminishing the need to continuously assign design work; (2) due to the reduced workload, amicable relationships were not formed with team members and the employee’s performance evaluations were poor; (3) there was a need to have the employee experience other duties to improve work capabilities and personnel evaluations; and (4) personnel orders fall within the employer’s authority over personnel matters, and it is in principle necessary to recognize the employer’s discretion regarding transfers. Taken together, the business necessity of the transfer in this case is recognized.
B. Whether there were disadvantages to living conditions
(1) The wage level before and after the transfer was the same, making it difficult to find that any economic disadvantage arose; (2) there was no significant difference in commuting time resulting from the change in workplace; and (3) the discontinuation of previously provided parking support does not, in itself, constitute a substantial disadvantage to living conditions. Accordingly, it is difficult to find that the disadvantages to living conditions resulting from the transfer exceeded the degree to be endured in light of the business necessity.
C. Whether consultation procedures required under the principle of good faith were observed
The employer conducted consultation procedures regarding the transfer on two occasions, and it is difficult to find any procedural defect in the transfer merely because the employee did not agree. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Decision on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
- “Decision on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Denial of Employee Status (Part‑Time · Commission Linked to Sales)’”
- “Decision on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Non‑Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’” – Date of Decision: – Case Result: First‑instance decision upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, justifiability of transfer (outsourcing of design work), personnel evaluation · poor performance, 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, “Decision on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Denial of Employee Status (Part‑Time · Commission Linked to Sales)’,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions relating to justifiability of transfer (outsourcing of design work) can be viewed together at “List of Decisions Relating to Justifiability of Transfer (Outsourcing of Design Work).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision that was concluded by upholding the first-instance ruling on the issue of “justifiability of transfer (outsourcing of design work).”
Decision Committee: Central Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae1422 ○ ○ ○ Application for Re‑examination for Remedy of Unfair Dismissal
2026.01.13 · Case Result: First‑instance decision upheld
Summary of Key Issues:
A. Whether there was a business necessity for the transfer
From the perspective of rational business operation, the business necessity of the transfer can be recognized in that: (1) the work performed by the employee was reduced through outsourcing, thereby diminishing the need to continuously assign design work; (2) due to the reduced workload, amicable relationships were not formed with team members and the employee’s performance evaluations were poor; (3) there was a need to have the employee experience other duties to improve work capabilities and personnel evaluations; (4) personnel orders fall within the employer’s authority over personnel matters, and it is in principle necessary to recognize the employer’s discretion regarding transfers; in light of all these circumstances, the business necessity of the transfer in this case was recognized.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this re‑examination case for remedy of unfair dismissal, the core issue before the Labor Relations Commission was whether the transfer (change of duties and workplace) imposed on an employee in charge of design work constituted a legitimate exercise of managerial prerogative, and whether it amounted to unfair dismissal and unfair transfer. The Central Labor Relations Commission upheld the first‑instance conclusion and focused its review on whether the employer’s transfer order constituted an abuse of rights under the Labor Standards Act.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether, in a situation where design work has been outsourced and reduced, a transfer involving changes to workplace and duties but no change in wages constitutes a legitimate exercise of managerial prerogative when comprehensively considering business necessity, disadvantages to the employee’s living conditions, and whether consultation procedures were followed.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case found that there was a need for personnel reallocation for rational business operation; that the employee’s existing design work had been significantly reduced through outsourcing and other means, thereby diminishing the need to continue assigning the same work; that, due to deteriorated relationships within the team and poor performance evaluations, it was necessary to seek improvement in capabilities and personnel evaluations by having the employee experience other duties; and that personnel orders in principle fall within the employer’s discretion. In light of these factors, the panel held that the business necessity of the transfer was established.
The panel further noted that the employee’s wage level before and after the transfer remained the same, so there was no significant economic disadvantage; that the change in workplace did not result in a substantial difference in commuting time; and that the mere discontinuation of previously provided parking support did not, in itself, constitute a disadvantage to living conditions that clearly exceeded the range ordinarily to be endured. On this basis, the panel determined that the disadvantages to living conditions were not so great as to outweigh the business necessity.
In addition, the panel found that the employer had conducted consultation procedures regarding the transfer on two occasions; that the mere fact that the employee did not agree did not mean that the consultation procedures required under the principle of good faith were violated; and that Supreme Court precedents do not consider the mere failure to consult in cases of transfer or reassignment to constitute an abuse of rights. Taking all of this into account, the panel held that the transfer in this case did not constitute an unfair transfer in violation of Article 23(1) of the Labor Standards Act or an abuse of rights.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s standpoint, in order to challenge a transfer or reassignment as unfair, it is not sufficient to rely solely on the fact that it is an “undesired personnel order.” The employee must prove with specific evidence that there is an objective lack of business necessity, or that the disadvantages to living conditions clearly exceed the range ordinarily to be endured. In particular, it is important to organize and document actual disadvantages—such as changes in wages, commuting time, job difficulty, and health impact—with figures and facts, and, if there was a complete lack of explanation or consultation during the transfer process, to preserve evidence of this through emails, recordings, and the like.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, to secure the justifiability of transfers and reassignments, first, the necessity of changes in personnel allocation and the rational reasons for selecting the particular employee as the subject of the transfer should be documented. Second, changes in wages, workplace, and benefits should be reviewed so that disadvantages to living conditions are not excessive, and, if necessary, supplementary measures such as commuting support or allowances should be considered. Third, by consulting with a specialized institution such as Labor Law Firm Law&, and, prior to the transfer, explaining to the employee on at least one or two occasions the reasons and timing of the transfer and possible alternatives, and recording this consultation process in writing or minutes, employers can significantly reduce the risk of disputes before the Labor Relations Commission.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Whether there was a business necessity for the transfer
From the perspective of rational business operation, the business necessity of the transfer can be recognized in that: (1) the work performed by the employee was reduced through outsourcing and other means, thereby diminishing the need to continuously assign design work; (2) due to the reduced workload, amicable relationships were not formed with team members and the employee’s performance evaluations were poor; (3) there was a need to have the employee experience other duties to improve work capabilities and personnel evaluations; and (4) personnel orders fall within the employer’s authority over personnel matters, and it is in principle necessary to recognize the employer’s discretion regarding transfers. Taken together, the business necessity of the transfer in this case is recognized.
B. Whether there were disadvantages to living conditions
(1) The wage level before and after the transfer was the same, making it difficult to find that any economic disadvantage arose; (2) there was no significant difference in commuting time resulting from the change in workplace; and (3) the discontinuation of previously provided parking support does not, in itself, constitute a substantial disadvantage to living conditions. Accordingly, it is difficult to find that the disadvantages to living conditions resulting from the transfer exceeded the degree to be endured in light of the business necessity.
C. Whether consultation procedures required under the principle of good faith were observed
The employer conducted consultation procedures regarding the transfer on two occasions, and it is difficult to find any procedural defect in the transfer merely because the employee did not agree.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Whether there was a business necessity for the transfer
From the perspective of rational business operation, the business necessity of the transfer can be recognized in that: (1) the work performed by the employee was reduced through outsourcing and other means, thereby diminishing the need to continuously assign design work; (2) due to the reduced workload, amicable relationships were not formed with team members and the employee’s performance evaluations were poor; (3) there was a need to have the employee experience other duties to improve work capabilities and personnel evaluations; and (4) personnel orders fall within the employer’s authority over personnel matters, and it is in principle necessary to recognize the employer’s discretion regarding transfers. Taken together, the business necessity of the transfer in this case is recognized.
B. Whether there were disadvantages to living conditions
(1) The wage level before and after the transfer was the same, making it difficult to find that any economic disadvantage arose; (2) there was no significant difference in commuting time resulting from the change in workplace; and (3) the discontinuation of previously provided parking support does not, in itself, constitute a substantial disadvantage to living conditions. Accordingly, it is difficult to find that the disadvantages to living conditions resulting from the transfer exceeded the degree to be endured in light of the business necessity.
C. Whether consultation procedures required under the principle of good faith were observed
The employer conducted consultation procedures regarding the transfer on two occasions, and it is difficult to find any procedural defect in the transfer merely because the employee did not agree. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Decision on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
- “Decision on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Denial of Employee Status (Part‑Time · Commission Linked to Sales)’”
- “Decision on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Non‑Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’” – Date of Decision: – Case Result: First‑instance decision upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, justifiability of transfer (outsourcing of design work), personnel evaluation · poor performance, 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, “Decision on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Denial of Employee Status (Part‑Time · Commission Linked to Sales)’,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions relating to justifiability of transfer (outsourcing of design work) can be viewed together at “List of Decisions Relating to Justifiability of Transfer (Outsourcing of Design Work).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
