Corporate trends / Performance record
‘Non-Existence of Consent to Transfer (Dispatch to an Affiliated Company)’ Unfair Dismissal Case (Unfair Dismissal 404)
- Date2026/04/26 04:04
- Read 146
[Case Information]
This case is a decision that concluded with the cancellation of the first-instance decision on the issue of “non-existence of consent to transfer (dispatch to an affiliated company).”
Decision Committee: Central Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae1597 ○ ○ ○ Application for Reconsideration of Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.02.11 · Case Result: First-Instance Decision Cancelled
Key Issue Summary: (a)
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, after the employer issued a personnel order instructing the employee to work on dispatch at another affiliated company, the employee refused to comply, and the issue arose as to whether the subsequent dismissal constituted unfair dismissal. The matter was contested before the Labor Relations Commission and the Central Labor Relations Commission. The Labor Relations Commission focused on whether this personnel order constituted an inter-company transfer, and, even if it were viewed as a transfer or reassignment within the company, whether it was a legitimate exercise of the employer’s personnel authority.
The employee did not consent to the personnel order and, in particular, argued that he was solely supporting his elderly father, who required special care such as accompaniment to hospital visits, and challenged the personnel order as unjust on that basis.
Ⅱ. Issues
The issues in this case are: (i) whether an order to work on dispatch at an affiliated company operated as a separate legal entity constitutes an inter-company transfer; and (ii) whether a transfer or reassignment order issued without the employee’s consent can be regarded as a legitimate exercise of personnel authority when weighed against the employee’s disadvantages in everyday life.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The decision panel in this case found that the three companies, including the employer, are each operated as independent legal entities and cannot be regarded as a single business or workplace with managerial unity and organic interrelation. Accordingly, the order to work on dispatch at another affiliated company does not constitute an intra-company reassignment but an inter-company personnel movement, i.e., a “transfer.” Because a transfer is a significant personnel measure that changes the counterparty to the employment contract, the employee’s consent is, in principle, required.
The panel held that the personnel order in this case lacked legitimacy as a transfer because it was issued without the employee’s express or implied consent. Even assuming it were to be viewed as a reassignment, the employment contract between the parties specifically limited the place (region) of work, and the employee had never agreed to a change in the place of work. Furthermore, the employee was solely supporting his elderly father, with whom he lived and who required special care such as accompaniment to hospital visits, so the disadvantages to the employee’s everyday life resulting from the personnel order were substantial, whereas it was difficult to find that the employer’s business necessity outweighed those disadvantages.
Accordingly, the dismissal in this case was found to constitute unfair dismissal, as it was a measure based on an unjust personnel order, and the employer was deemed to have deviated from and abused its discretion in personnel matters.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Employees should bear in mind that even where movement is between affiliated companies, if it constitutes a “transfer” in which the company and employer change, their consent is, in principle, required. In particular, where the place or region of work is specified in the employment contract, employees can actively challenge the legitimacy of unilateral orders by the employer assigning them to a different region or different company.
In addition, if there are circumstances that make it difficult to accept the personnel order—such as family support obligations, caregiving responsibilities, or health issues—it is advisable to secure relevant documentation in advance (medical certificates, hospital visit records, family relationship certificates, etc.) and to raise objections in writing from the time the personnel order is notified. Doing so may work favorably for the employee before the Labor Relations Commission.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
When an employer plans a transfer between affiliated companies or a dispatch-type personnel order, it should first examine whether there is sufficient managerial unity among the respective legal entities for them to be recognized in substance as a single workplace, and whether prior or blanket consent to transfers has been adequately secured through the employment contract, work rules, or established practice. If the place of work has been specified in the employment contract, any change in that place effectively constitutes a change to the employment contract, so a procedure should be established to obtain the employee’s express consent.
Furthermore, to secure the legitimacy of transfer or reassignment orders, the employer should: (i) retain objective materials demonstrating business necessity (such as organizational restructuring or the need for personnel redistribution); (ii) identify the employee’s disadvantages in everyday life (family caregiving, commuting distance, need to relocate residence, etc.) through interviews and consultations; and (iii) keep records showing that the consultation procedures required under the principle of good faith were followed. These will serve as important means of defense in future disputes before the Labor Relations Commission.
In personnel movement and transfer disputes of this type, as with unfair dismissal cases, the Labor Relations Commission strictly examines whether there is “just cause” under Article 23 of the Labor Standards Act and whether there has been an abuse of personnel authority. Both employees and companies are therefore advised to consult sufficiently in advance with a specialized institution such as Labor Law Firm Law&.
2. Matters Decided
(a) Case Overview and Procedural History
(a) Whether the personnel order in this case constitutes an inter-company transfer
The three companies, including the employer, are operated as separate legal entities and cannot be regarded as a single business or workplace with managerial unity and organic interrelation. Therefore, the personnel order instructing the employee to work on dispatch at another affiliated company constitutes a transfer, i.e., an inter-company personnel movement.
(b) Whether the personnel order in this case was legitimate
1) The personnel order in this case constitutes a transfer, yet it was issued without the employee’s consent and is therefore unjust.
2) Even assuming the personnel order constitutes a reassignment, the employment contract between the parties in this case specifically limited the place (region) of work, and the employee never consented to a change in the place of work; thus, the personnel order is unjust.
3) Even apart from the above, considering that the employee lives with and solely supports his elderly father, who requires special care such as accompaniment to hospital visits, the disadvantages to the employee’s everyday life resulting from the personnel order are substantial, and it cannot be found that the business necessity of the personnel order outweighs those disadvantages. Accordingly, the personnel order in this case is unjust, as it constitutes a deviation from and abuse of the employer’s discretion in personnel matters.
3. Summary of the Decision
(a) Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
(a) Whether the personnel order in this case constitutes an inter-company transfer
The three companies, including the employer, are operated as separate legal entities and cannot be regarded as a single business or workplace with managerial unity and organic interrelation. Therefore, the personnel order instructing the employee to work on dispatch at another affiliated company constitutes a transfer, i.e., an inter-company personnel movement.
(b) Whether the personnel order in this case was legitimate
1) The personnel order in this case constitutes a transfer, yet it was issued without the employee’s consent and is therefore unjust.
2) Even assuming the personnel order constitutes a reassignment, the employment contract between the parties in this case specifically limited the place (region) of work, and the employee never consented to a change in the place of work; thus, the personnel order is unjust.
3) Even apart from the above, considering that the employee lives with and solely supports his elderly father, who requires special care such as accompaniment to hospital visits, the disadvantages to the employee’s everyday life resulting from the personnel order are substantial, and it cannot be found that the business necessity of the personnel order outweighs those disadvantages. Accordingly, the personnel order in this case is unjust, as it constitutes a deviation from and abuse of the employer’s discretion in personnel matters. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- ‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision
- ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision
- ‘Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision – Date of Decision: – Case Result: First-Instance Decision Upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, non-existence of consent to transfer (dispatch to an affiliated company), personnel order·transfer, reassignment·relocation, 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, “‘Existence of Dismissal (Resignation Text Message)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to non-existence of consent to transfer (dispatch to an affiliated company) can be viewed in the “List of Decisions Related to Non-Existence of Consent to Transfer (Dispatch to an Affiliated Company).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision that concluded with the cancellation of the first-instance decision on the issue of “non-existence of consent to transfer (dispatch to an affiliated company).”
Decision Committee: Central Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae1597 ○ ○ ○ Application for Reconsideration of Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.02.11 · Case Result: First-Instance Decision Cancelled
Key Issue Summary: (a)
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, after the employer issued a personnel order instructing the employee to work on dispatch at another affiliated company, the employee refused to comply, and the issue arose as to whether the subsequent dismissal constituted unfair dismissal. The matter was contested before the Labor Relations Commission and the Central Labor Relations Commission. The Labor Relations Commission focused on whether this personnel order constituted an inter-company transfer, and, even if it were viewed as a transfer or reassignment within the company, whether it was a legitimate exercise of the employer’s personnel authority.
The employee did not consent to the personnel order and, in particular, argued that he was solely supporting his elderly father, who required special care such as accompaniment to hospital visits, and challenged the personnel order as unjust on that basis.
Ⅱ. Issues
The issues in this case are: (i) whether an order to work on dispatch at an affiliated company operated as a separate legal entity constitutes an inter-company transfer; and (ii) whether a transfer or reassignment order issued without the employee’s consent can be regarded as a legitimate exercise of personnel authority when weighed against the employee’s disadvantages in everyday life.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The decision panel in this case found that the three companies, including the employer, are each operated as independent legal entities and cannot be regarded as a single business or workplace with managerial unity and organic interrelation. Accordingly, the order to work on dispatch at another affiliated company does not constitute an intra-company reassignment but an inter-company personnel movement, i.e., a “transfer.” Because a transfer is a significant personnel measure that changes the counterparty to the employment contract, the employee’s consent is, in principle, required.
The panel held that the personnel order in this case lacked legitimacy as a transfer because it was issued without the employee’s express or implied consent. Even assuming it were to be viewed as a reassignment, the employment contract between the parties specifically limited the place (region) of work, and the employee had never agreed to a change in the place of work. Furthermore, the employee was solely supporting his elderly father, with whom he lived and who required special care such as accompaniment to hospital visits, so the disadvantages to the employee’s everyday life resulting from the personnel order were substantial, whereas it was difficult to find that the employer’s business necessity outweighed those disadvantages.
Accordingly, the dismissal in this case was found to constitute unfair dismissal, as it was a measure based on an unjust personnel order, and the employer was deemed to have deviated from and abused its discretion in personnel matters.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Employees should bear in mind that even where movement is between affiliated companies, if it constitutes a “transfer” in which the company and employer change, their consent is, in principle, required. In particular, where the place or region of work is specified in the employment contract, employees can actively challenge the legitimacy of unilateral orders by the employer assigning them to a different region or different company.
In addition, if there are circumstances that make it difficult to accept the personnel order—such as family support obligations, caregiving responsibilities, or health issues—it is advisable to secure relevant documentation in advance (medical certificates, hospital visit records, family relationship certificates, etc.) and to raise objections in writing from the time the personnel order is notified. Doing so may work favorably for the employee before the Labor Relations Commission.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
When an employer plans a transfer between affiliated companies or a dispatch-type personnel order, it should first examine whether there is sufficient managerial unity among the respective legal entities for them to be recognized in substance as a single workplace, and whether prior or blanket consent to transfers has been adequately secured through the employment contract, work rules, or established practice. If the place of work has been specified in the employment contract, any change in that place effectively constitutes a change to the employment contract, so a procedure should be established to obtain the employee’s express consent.
Furthermore, to secure the legitimacy of transfer or reassignment orders, the employer should: (i) retain objective materials demonstrating business necessity (such as organizational restructuring or the need for personnel redistribution); (ii) identify the employee’s disadvantages in everyday life (family caregiving, commuting distance, need to relocate residence, etc.) through interviews and consultations; and (iii) keep records showing that the consultation procedures required under the principle of good faith were followed. These will serve as important means of defense in future disputes before the Labor Relations Commission.
In personnel movement and transfer disputes of this type, as with unfair dismissal cases, the Labor Relations Commission strictly examines whether there is “just cause” under Article 23 of the Labor Standards Act and whether there has been an abuse of personnel authority. Both employees and companies are therefore advised to consult sufficiently in advance with a specialized institution such as Labor Law Firm Law&.
2. Matters Decided
(a) Case Overview and Procedural History
(a) Whether the personnel order in this case constitutes an inter-company transfer
The three companies, including the employer, are operated as separate legal entities and cannot be regarded as a single business or workplace with managerial unity and organic interrelation. Therefore, the personnel order instructing the employee to work on dispatch at another affiliated company constitutes a transfer, i.e., an inter-company personnel movement.
(b) Whether the personnel order in this case was legitimate
1) The personnel order in this case constitutes a transfer, yet it was issued without the employee’s consent and is therefore unjust.
2) Even assuming the personnel order constitutes a reassignment, the employment contract between the parties in this case specifically limited the place (region) of work, and the employee never consented to a change in the place of work; thus, the personnel order is unjust.
3) Even apart from the above, considering that the employee lives with and solely supports his elderly father, who requires special care such as accompaniment to hospital visits, the disadvantages to the employee’s everyday life resulting from the personnel order are substantial, and it cannot be found that the business necessity of the personnel order outweighs those disadvantages. Accordingly, the personnel order in this case is unjust, as it constitutes a deviation from and abuse of the employer’s discretion in personnel matters.
3. Summary of the Decision
(a) Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
(a) Whether the personnel order in this case constitutes an inter-company transfer
The three companies, including the employer, are operated as separate legal entities and cannot be regarded as a single business or workplace with managerial unity and organic interrelation. Therefore, the personnel order instructing the employee to work on dispatch at another affiliated company constitutes a transfer, i.e., an inter-company personnel movement.
(b) Whether the personnel order in this case was legitimate
1) The personnel order in this case constitutes a transfer, yet it was issued without the employee’s consent and is therefore unjust.
2) Even assuming the personnel order constitutes a reassignment, the employment contract between the parties in this case specifically limited the place (region) of work, and the employee never consented to a change in the place of work; thus, the personnel order is unjust.
3) Even apart from the above, considering that the employee lives with and solely supports his elderly father, who requires special care such as accompaniment to hospital visits, the disadvantages to the employee’s everyday life resulting from the personnel order are substantial, and it cannot be found that the business necessity of the personnel order outweighs those disadvantages. Accordingly, the personnel order in this case is unjust, as it constitutes a deviation from and abuse of the employer’s discretion in personnel matters. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- ‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision
- ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision
- ‘Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision – Date of Decision: – Case Result: First-Instance Decision Upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, non-existence of consent to transfer (dispatch to an affiliated company), personnel order·transfer, reassignment·relocation, 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, “‘Existence of Dismissal (Resignation Text Message)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to non-existence of consent to transfer (dispatch to an affiliated company) can be viewed in the “List of Decisions Related to Non-Existence of Consent to Transfer (Dispatch to an Affiliated Company).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
