Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning “Transfer and Removal from Position (Statements and Conduct Related to Internal Union Conflict)” (Unfair Dismissal 334)
- Date2026/03/31 04:13
- Read 185
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “transfer and removal from position (statements and conduct related to internal union conflict).”
Adjudicating body: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae10204 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
Decision date: 2026.02.27 · Disposition: Dismissed
Summary of key issues:
A. Existence of business necessity
Although the employee was serving as Head of the Management Support Team in charge of HR and labor management, he made inappropriate statements and engaged in improper conduct regarding internal union matters, thereby causing labor‑management disputes. It was also confirmed that he failed to comply with basic work procedures and repeatedly clashed with the chairperson over work‑related differences of opinion. In light of the employee’s fault, the need to improve work efficiency, and the need to renew the organizational atmosphere, the Commission found that there was business necessity for the transfer.
B. Whether the disadvantages in personal life were excessive
…
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, an employee who had been working as Head of the Management Support Team was removed from his team leader position and transferred on the grounds of his statements and conduct related to internal labor union issues and his repeated conflicts with the chairperson. The employee applied to the Labor Relations Commission for relief, claiming that these personnel measures were in substance equivalent to unfair dismissal.
The Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission focused its review on whether the employer’s transfer and removal from position constituted an abuse of managerial prerogative under the Labor Standards Act, and ultimately dismissed the employee’s application.
Ⅱ. Issues
The issue in this case is:
“Whether the transfer and removal from position of an employee who, as Head of the Management Support Team, was responsible for HR and labor management, based on his inappropriate statements and conduct regarding internal union matters and his repeated work‑related conflicts with the chairperson, lacked business necessity, imposed excessive disadvantages in his personal life, or violated the duty to consult under the principle of good faith, thereby constituting an abuse of managerial prerogative equivalent to unfair dismissal.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case noted that, despite being responsible for HR and labor management, the employee made inappropriate statements and engaged in improper conduct concerning internal union matters, thereby triggering labor‑management disputes; that he failed to comply with basic work procedures and repeatedly argued with the chairperson over work‑related differences of opinion, thereby hindering the operation of the organization; and that, in light of these circumstances, there was an objective need to transfer him to improve work efficiency and to restore workplace order and organizational atmosphere, and it was reasonable to include the employee as a subject of such transfer.
Although the employee’s team leader duty allowance decreased as a result of the transfer, his workload and responsibilities were reduced accordingly, and it was possible to partially offset the decrease through overtime work. It was therefore difficult to find that the disadvantages in his personal life arising from the change in work location and job duties significantly exceeded the range that an ordinary employee should be expected to endure.
Furthermore, once the chairperson had expressed, by telephone, an intention to discuss personnel matters, even if the employer did not present all details in writing or conduct detailed consultations prior to the transfer, the consultation did not in substance progress because the employee did not present any particular opinions or demands. Taking these factors together, the Commission found that there was no serious defect in the consultation process required under the principle of good faith, and therefore held that the transfer and removal from position were a legitimate exercise of managerial prerogative and did not constitute unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s standpoint, in order to challenge a transfer or removal from position as unfair, it is necessary to prove with specific evidence not only a reduction in wages, but also that disadvantages in personal life—such as increased work intensity, loss of professional expertise, or difficulty commuting—go beyond the range that is ordinarily tolerable.
In addition, when contacted regarding personnel discussions, the employee should clearly state his or her position and demands, and keep records—such as text messages or emails—of what opinions were expressed during the consultation process. This is important in order to later argue before the Labor Relations Commission that there was “substantive consultation.”
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, it is important to document the business necessity of the transfer or removal from position, including organizational problems, the employee’s specific fault, and the expected improvements in work efficiency and organizational atmosphere after personnel reallocation.
It is also advisable to structure the changes in wages and working conditions resulting from the transfer so that they are not excessive, and to leave a record of having provided an opportunity for prior personnel discussions, whether by telephone or in‑person meetings. Doing so increases the likelihood that the Labor Relations Commission will find that the consultation process required under the principle of good faith has been substantially satisfied.
To prevail in disputes over this type of transfer and removal from position, it is important to understand the analytical framework used by the Labor Relations Commission and the courts, which balance business necessity for the transfer, disadvantages in the employee’s personal life, and the substance of the consultation process, and to systematically organize the facts from the outset in a manner consistent with that legal framework.
2. Matters Adjudicated
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Existence of business necessity
Although the employee, as Head of the Management Support Team, was responsible for HR and labor management, he made inappropriate statements and engaged in improper conduct regarding internal union matters, thereby causing labor‑management disputes. It was confirmed that he failed to comply with basic work procedures and repeatedly clashed with the chairperson over work‑related differences of opinion. In light of the employee’s fault and the need to improve work efficiency and renew the organizational atmosphere, the Commission found that there was business necessity for the transfer.
B. Whether the disadvantages in personal life were excessive
Although the employee’s duty allowance decreased due to his removal from the team leader position, his workload and responsibilities were reduced accordingly, and it appeared that the duty allowance could be offset through overtime work. Therefore, it could not be found that the disadvantages in his personal life arising from the transfer significantly exceeded the degree that an employee is ordinarily expected to endure.
C. Compliance with the consultation procedure required under the principle of good faith
Although the chairperson called the employee and expressed an intention to discuss personnel matters, there was no evidence that the employee actively expressed opinions or conveyed demands. Accordingly, it was difficult to conclude that there was such a serious defect in the prior consultation procedure as to invalidate the effectiveness of the transfer.
3. Summary of Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Existence of business necessity
Although the employee, as Head of the Management Support Team, was responsible for HR and labor management, he made inappropriate statements and engaged in improper conduct regarding internal union matters, thereby causing labor‑management disputes. It was confirmed that he failed to comply with basic work procedures and repeatedly clashed with the chairperson over work‑related differences of opinion. In light of the employee’s fault and the need to improve work efficiency and renew the organizational atmosphere, the Commission found that there was business necessity for the transfer.
B. Whether the disadvantages in personal life were excessive
Although the employee’s duty allowance decreased due to his removal from the team leader position, his workload and responsibilities were reduced accordingly, and it appeared that the duty allowance could be offset through overtime work. Therefore, it could not be found that the disadvantages in his personal life arising from the transfer significantly exceeded the degree that an employee is ordinarily expected to endure.
C. Compliance with the consultation procedure required under the principle of good faith
Although the chairperson called the employee and expressed an intention to discuss personnel matters, there was no evidence that the employee actively expressed opinions or conveyed demands. Accordingly, it was difficult to conclude that there was such a serious defect in the prior consultation procedure as to invalidate the effectiveness of the transfer. /
[More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning ‘Non‑Existence of Grounds for Disciplinary Action (Oriental Medical Clinic Orders, Chuna Therapy, Meal Conduct)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning ‘Expression of Intent to Dismiss (Site Foreman’s Remarks)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning ‘Non‑Formation of Hiring Decision (Absence of Offer Letter)’” – Decision date: – Case number: First‑instance decision upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, transfer and removal from position (statements and conduct related to internal union conflict), performance evaluation and poor performance, violation of company policy and non‑compliance with work orders, 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 the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning ‘Expression of Intent to Dismiss (Site Foreman’s Remarks)’,” in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to transfer and removal from position (statements and conduct related to internal union conflict) can be viewed together at “List of Decisions Related to Transfer and Removal from Position (Statements and Conduct Related to Internal Union Conflict).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “transfer and removal from position (statements and conduct related to internal union conflict).”
Adjudicating body: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae10204 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
Decision date: 2026.02.27 · Disposition: Dismissed
Summary of key issues:
A. Existence of business necessity
Although the employee was serving as Head of the Management Support Team in charge of HR and labor management, he made inappropriate statements and engaged in improper conduct regarding internal union matters, thereby causing labor‑management disputes. It was also confirmed that he failed to comply with basic work procedures and repeatedly clashed with the chairperson over work‑related differences of opinion. In light of the employee’s fault, the need to improve work efficiency, and the need to renew the organizational atmosphere, the Commission found that there was business necessity for the transfer.
B. Whether the disadvantages in personal life were excessive
…
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, an employee who had been working as Head of the Management Support Team was removed from his team leader position and transferred on the grounds of his statements and conduct related to internal labor union issues and his repeated conflicts with the chairperson. The employee applied to the Labor Relations Commission for relief, claiming that these personnel measures were in substance equivalent to unfair dismissal.
The Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission focused its review on whether the employer’s transfer and removal from position constituted an abuse of managerial prerogative under the Labor Standards Act, and ultimately dismissed the employee’s application.
Ⅱ. Issues
The issue in this case is:
“Whether the transfer and removal from position of an employee who, as Head of the Management Support Team, was responsible for HR and labor management, based on his inappropriate statements and conduct regarding internal union matters and his repeated work‑related conflicts with the chairperson, lacked business necessity, imposed excessive disadvantages in his personal life, or violated the duty to consult under the principle of good faith, thereby constituting an abuse of managerial prerogative equivalent to unfair dismissal.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case noted that, despite being responsible for HR and labor management, the employee made inappropriate statements and engaged in improper conduct concerning internal union matters, thereby triggering labor‑management disputes; that he failed to comply with basic work procedures and repeatedly argued with the chairperson over work‑related differences of opinion, thereby hindering the operation of the organization; and that, in light of these circumstances, there was an objective need to transfer him to improve work efficiency and to restore workplace order and organizational atmosphere, and it was reasonable to include the employee as a subject of such transfer.
Although the employee’s team leader duty allowance decreased as a result of the transfer, his workload and responsibilities were reduced accordingly, and it was possible to partially offset the decrease through overtime work. It was therefore difficult to find that the disadvantages in his personal life arising from the change in work location and job duties significantly exceeded the range that an ordinary employee should be expected to endure.
Furthermore, once the chairperson had expressed, by telephone, an intention to discuss personnel matters, even if the employer did not present all details in writing or conduct detailed consultations prior to the transfer, the consultation did not in substance progress because the employee did not present any particular opinions or demands. Taking these factors together, the Commission found that there was no serious defect in the consultation process required under the principle of good faith, and therefore held that the transfer and removal from position were a legitimate exercise of managerial prerogative and did not constitute unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s standpoint, in order to challenge a transfer or removal from position as unfair, it is necessary to prove with specific evidence not only a reduction in wages, but also that disadvantages in personal life—such as increased work intensity, loss of professional expertise, or difficulty commuting—go beyond the range that is ordinarily tolerable.
In addition, when contacted regarding personnel discussions, the employee should clearly state his or her position and demands, and keep records—such as text messages or emails—of what opinions were expressed during the consultation process. This is important in order to later argue before the Labor Relations Commission that there was “substantive consultation.”
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, it is important to document the business necessity of the transfer or removal from position, including organizational problems, the employee’s specific fault, and the expected improvements in work efficiency and organizational atmosphere after personnel reallocation.
It is also advisable to structure the changes in wages and working conditions resulting from the transfer so that they are not excessive, and to leave a record of having provided an opportunity for prior personnel discussions, whether by telephone or in‑person meetings. Doing so increases the likelihood that the Labor Relations Commission will find that the consultation process required under the principle of good faith has been substantially satisfied.
To prevail in disputes over this type of transfer and removal from position, it is important to understand the analytical framework used by the Labor Relations Commission and the courts, which balance business necessity for the transfer, disadvantages in the employee’s personal life, and the substance of the consultation process, and to systematically organize the facts from the outset in a manner consistent with that legal framework.
2. Matters Adjudicated
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Existence of business necessity
Although the employee, as Head of the Management Support Team, was responsible for HR and labor management, he made inappropriate statements and engaged in improper conduct regarding internal union matters, thereby causing labor‑management disputes. It was confirmed that he failed to comply with basic work procedures and repeatedly clashed with the chairperson over work‑related differences of opinion. In light of the employee’s fault and the need to improve work efficiency and renew the organizational atmosphere, the Commission found that there was business necessity for the transfer.
B. Whether the disadvantages in personal life were excessive
Although the employee’s duty allowance decreased due to his removal from the team leader position, his workload and responsibilities were reduced accordingly, and it appeared that the duty allowance could be offset through overtime work. Therefore, it could not be found that the disadvantages in his personal life arising from the transfer significantly exceeded the degree that an employee is ordinarily expected to endure.
C. Compliance with the consultation procedure required under the principle of good faith
Although the chairperson called the employee and expressed an intention to discuss personnel matters, there was no evidence that the employee actively expressed opinions or conveyed demands. Accordingly, it was difficult to conclude that there was such a serious defect in the prior consultation procedure as to invalidate the effectiveness of the transfer.
3. Summary of Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Existence of business necessity
Although the employee, as Head of the Management Support Team, was responsible for HR and labor management, he made inappropriate statements and engaged in improper conduct regarding internal union matters, thereby causing labor‑management disputes. It was confirmed that he failed to comply with basic work procedures and repeatedly clashed with the chairperson over work‑related differences of opinion. In light of the employee’s fault and the need to improve work efficiency and renew the organizational atmosphere, the Commission found that there was business necessity for the transfer.
B. Whether the disadvantages in personal life were excessive
Although the employee’s duty allowance decreased due to his removal from the team leader position, his workload and responsibilities were reduced accordingly, and it appeared that the duty allowance could be offset through overtime work. Therefore, it could not be found that the disadvantages in his personal life arising from the transfer significantly exceeded the degree that an employee is ordinarily expected to endure.
C. Compliance with the consultation procedure required under the principle of good faith
Although the chairperson called the employee and expressed an intention to discuss personnel matters, there was no evidence that the employee actively expressed opinions or conveyed demands. Accordingly, it was difficult to conclude that there was such a serious defect in the prior consultation procedure as to invalidate the effectiveness of the transfer. /
[More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning ‘Non‑Existence of Grounds for Disciplinary Action (Oriental Medical Clinic Orders, Chuna Therapy, Meal Conduct)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning ‘Expression of Intent to Dismiss (Site Foreman’s Remarks)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning ‘Non‑Formation of Hiring Decision (Absence of Offer Letter)’” – Decision date: – Case number: First‑instance decision upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, transfer and removal from position (statements and conduct related to internal union conflict), performance evaluation and poor performance, violation of company policy and non‑compliance with work orders, 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 the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning ‘Expression of Intent to Dismiss (Site Foreman’s Remarks)’,” in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to transfer and removal from position (statements and conduct related to internal union conflict) can be viewed together at “List of Decisions Related to Transfer and Removal from Position (Statements and Conduct Related to Internal Union Conflict).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
