Corporate trends / Performance record
Case on Unfair Dismissal Relating to “Lack of Business Necessity (Formal Transfer)” (Unfair Dismissal 360)
- Date2026/04/09 04:08
- Read 179
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employee prevailed in full on the issue of “lack of business necessity (formal transfer).”
Decision body: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae10140 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.02.20 · Case result: Employee’s claim fully upheld
Summary of key issue: Only the employee’s department affiliation was changed, while the duties before and after the transfer remained the same with no substantive change. It was therefore difficult to find that duties corresponding in substance to the employer’s asserted need for the transfer had actually been assigned to the employee, and the Commission held that there was no business necessity for the transfer.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This unfair dismissal case arose after the employer changed only the employee’s department affiliation and a dispute was subsequently brought before the Labor Relations Commission. The Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission focused its review on whether the employer’s asserted necessity for the transfer could be recognized, given that the actual duties performed by the employee before and after the transfer were identical.
Labor Law Firm Law& takes the view that, in transfer and reassignment disputes of this kind, it is necessary to closely examine whether there has been an abuse of managerial authority, an issue that is no less important than in collective redundancy cases.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is:
“In a situation where only the employee’s department affiliation has been formally changed and there is no substantive difference in the duties performed before and after the transfer, can ‘business necessity’ for the employer’s transfer order be recognized?”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The decision panel in this case found that only the employee’s department affiliation had been changed, while the duties before and after the transfer were the same, resulting in no substantive change; that no new duties or roles linked to the employer’s asserted need for personnel reallocation or organizational management had been assigned; and that there was a lack of objective evidence that the transfer enhanced the rationality or efficiency of the company’s operations.
Accordingly, the panel held that the transfer disposition could not be regarded as a legitimate exercise of managerial authority under Article 23 of the Labor Standards Act, and that the prerequisite for a transfer, namely “business necessity,” was not satisfied.
The dismissal in this case was ultimately found to be close to an abuse of managerial authority under the pretext of a transfer, and, as a measure lacking substantive necessity, was determined to be unfair.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, when a transfer occurs, it is advisable to specifically record and organize not only the formal changes in department name or title, but also how the actual duties performed, responsibilities, and working patterns have changed.
If the duties before and after the transfer are in fact identical, and there is no objective necessity connected to the reasons for the transfer presented by the employer, employees should bear in mind that there may be room to challenge the measure by filing an application for remedy for unfair transfer or unfair dismissal with the Labor Relations Commission.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, to avoid transfers or reassignments being misunderstood as mere seat-shuffling or as a means of imposing personnel disadvantages, it is important to document in advance the necessity for changes in personnel allocation, the rationality of selecting the particular employee, and the benefits in terms of work efficiency and organizational management arising from the transfer.
In addition, the employer should be able to explain how the specific duties and roles assigned to the employee after the transfer differ from those previously performed, and how any disadvantages in the employee’s living conditions have been mitigated. Being able to do so will help reduce disputes over abuse of managerial authority before the Labor Relations Commission.
2. Matters Decided
a. Case Overview and Procedural History
Only the employee’s department affiliation was changed, while the duties before and after the transfer remained the same with no substantive change. It was therefore difficult to find that duties corresponding in substance to the employer’s asserted need for the transfer had actually been assigned to the employee, and the Commission held that there was no business necessity.
3. Summary of Decision
a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
Only the employee’s department affiliation was changed, while the duties before and after the transfer remained the same with no substantive change. It was therefore difficult to find that duties corresponding in substance to the employer’s asserted need for the transfer had actually been assigned to the employee, and the Commission held that there was no business necessity.
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Case on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Not a Transfer or Demotion (Manager → Staff)’”
- “Case on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’”
- “Case on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Dismissal (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’” – Decision date: – Case number: Dismissal
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, lack of business necessity (formal transfer), personnel order/transfer, 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.
※ The previous article, “Case on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Not a Transfer or Demotion (Manager → Staff)’,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of decisions relating to lack of business necessity (formal transfer) can be viewed together in the “List of Decisions Relating to Lack of Business Necessity (Formal Transfer).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the employee prevailed in full on the issue of “lack of business necessity (formal transfer).”
Decision body: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae10140 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.02.20 · Case result: Employee’s claim fully upheld
Summary of key issue: Only the employee’s department affiliation was changed, while the duties before and after the transfer remained the same with no substantive change. It was therefore difficult to find that duties corresponding in substance to the employer’s asserted need for the transfer had actually been assigned to the employee, and the Commission held that there was no business necessity for the transfer.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This unfair dismissal case arose after the employer changed only the employee’s department affiliation and a dispute was subsequently brought before the Labor Relations Commission. The Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission focused its review on whether the employer’s asserted necessity for the transfer could be recognized, given that the actual duties performed by the employee before and after the transfer were identical.
Labor Law Firm Law& takes the view that, in transfer and reassignment disputes of this kind, it is necessary to closely examine whether there has been an abuse of managerial authority, an issue that is no less important than in collective redundancy cases.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is:
“In a situation where only the employee’s department affiliation has been formally changed and there is no substantive difference in the duties performed before and after the transfer, can ‘business necessity’ for the employer’s transfer order be recognized?”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The decision panel in this case found that only the employee’s department affiliation had been changed, while the duties before and after the transfer were the same, resulting in no substantive change; that no new duties or roles linked to the employer’s asserted need for personnel reallocation or organizational management had been assigned; and that there was a lack of objective evidence that the transfer enhanced the rationality or efficiency of the company’s operations.
Accordingly, the panel held that the transfer disposition could not be regarded as a legitimate exercise of managerial authority under Article 23 of the Labor Standards Act, and that the prerequisite for a transfer, namely “business necessity,” was not satisfied.
The dismissal in this case was ultimately found to be close to an abuse of managerial authority under the pretext of a transfer, and, as a measure lacking substantive necessity, was determined to be unfair.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, when a transfer occurs, it is advisable to specifically record and organize not only the formal changes in department name or title, but also how the actual duties performed, responsibilities, and working patterns have changed.
If the duties before and after the transfer are in fact identical, and there is no objective necessity connected to the reasons for the transfer presented by the employer, employees should bear in mind that there may be room to challenge the measure by filing an application for remedy for unfair transfer or unfair dismissal with the Labor Relations Commission.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, to avoid transfers or reassignments being misunderstood as mere seat-shuffling or as a means of imposing personnel disadvantages, it is important to document in advance the necessity for changes in personnel allocation, the rationality of selecting the particular employee, and the benefits in terms of work efficiency and organizational management arising from the transfer.
In addition, the employer should be able to explain how the specific duties and roles assigned to the employee after the transfer differ from those previously performed, and how any disadvantages in the employee’s living conditions have been mitigated. Being able to do so will help reduce disputes over abuse of managerial authority before the Labor Relations Commission.
2. Matters Decided
a. Case Overview and Procedural History
Only the employee’s department affiliation was changed, while the duties before and after the transfer remained the same with no substantive change. It was therefore difficult to find that duties corresponding in substance to the employer’s asserted need for the transfer had actually been assigned to the employee, and the Commission held that there was no business necessity.
3. Summary of Decision
a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
Only the employee’s department affiliation was changed, while the duties before and after the transfer remained the same with no substantive change. It was therefore difficult to find that duties corresponding in substance to the employer’s asserted need for the transfer had actually been assigned to the employee, and the Commission held that there was no business necessity.
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Case on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Not a Transfer or Demotion (Manager → Staff)’”
- “Case on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’”
- “Case on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Dismissal (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’” – Decision date: – Case number: Dismissal
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, lack of business necessity (formal transfer), personnel order/transfer, 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.
※ The previous article, “Case on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Not a Transfer or Demotion (Manager → Staff)’,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of decisions relating to lack of business necessity (formal transfer) can be viewed together in the “List of Decisions Relating to Lack of Business Necessity (Formal Transfer).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
