Corporate trends / Performance record
‘Justifiability of Transfer (Transfer of Security Guards under the Security Services Act)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision (Unfair Dismissal 458)
- Date2026/05/18 04:04
- Read 96
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “justifiability of transfer (transfer of security guards under the Security Services Act).”
Decision body: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission
Case: 2026Buhae133 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
Decision date: 2026.03.24 · Result: Dismissed
Summary of key issues:
A. Business necessity: The regional headquarters had a small number of security guards, so when a vacancy occurred, the need to supplement personnel was recognized; and the employer selected the transferee in the order prescribed by the internal transfer operation standards. Taken together, business necessity was acknowledged.
B. Degree of personal disadvantage: (1) The transfer period was temporary, up to one year at most; (2) the level of wage reduction, approximately KRW 450,000 over six months, was not considered substantial; (3) the employer…
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, a worker employed as a security guard under the Security Services Act refused to comply with a transfer order issued by the regional headquarters and filed an application with the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission for a remedy for unfair dismissal (arguing unfair dismissal accompanied by an unfair transfer).
The Labor Relations Commission focused on whether the employer’s transfer order constituted a legitimate exercise of its managerial prerogative, and comprehensively reviewed business necessity, the degree of personal (living) disadvantage, and whether the employer had fulfilled the duty to consult in good faith.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is:
“Where there is a need to supplement personnel due to a shortage of security guards, does a transfer made in accordance with the order set by the internal transfer operation standards constitute an unfair transfer or unfair dismissal on the grounds that it causes excessive personal disadvantage to the worker or that the consultation process was insufficient?”
Ⅲ. Outline of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case found that, because the regional headquarters had a small number of security guards, when a vacancy occurred there was business necessity to supplement personnel; that the employer selected the transferee in the order prescribed by the internal transfer operation standards, so the rationality of personnel selection was recognized; and that the transfer was a temporary measure for a maximum of one year, the wage reduction amounted to only about KRW 450,000 over six months, and the provision of accommodation and travel/relocation expenses significantly mitigated the worker’s personal disadvantage. In light of these factors, the Commission held that the transfer itself was justified.
Even though the worker had performed team leader duties, the Commission found that the “team leader” role was not a separate rank or position but merely a supervisory function, and thus it was difficult to view the transfer as a substantive demotion. Taking into account that the employer conducted multiple interviews and exchanged emails with the worker, thereby following the consultation procedures required under the principle of good faith, the Commission concluded that the transfer did not violate Article 23 of the Labor Standards Act and did not constitute an abuse of rights.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective)
From the worker’s standpoint, to successfully argue that a transfer or reassignment is unfair, it is necessary to specifically prove that the personal disadvantage goes significantly beyond the level that an ordinary worker could reasonably be expected to endure, and not merely that the transfer is inconvenient.
In particular, where the transfer period is temporary, the wage reduction is limited, and the company has taken mitigating measures such as providing accommodation and transportation expenses, it is important to understand that the Labor Relations Commission is unlikely to find an unfair transfer or unfair dismissal.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s side, when managing personnel such as security guards or similar occupations, it is important to prepare in advance objective materials that can substantiate the necessity of transfer, such as the current staffing status and internal transfer standards.
In addition, if the employer prepares mitigating measures to minimize wage and personal disadvantages arising from the transfer—such as providing accommodation and relocation expenses—and keeps records of the consultation process through interviews and emails, there is a higher likelihood that, in the event of disputes over redundancy dismissals or transfers before the Labor Relations Commission, the measures will be recognized as a legitimate exercise of managerial prerogative.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Business necessity
Because the regional headquarters had a small number of security guards, when a vacancy occurred the need to supplement personnel was recognized; and, taking into account that the employer determined the transferee in the order prescribed by the internal transfer operation standards, business necessity was acknowledged.
B. Degree of personal disadvantage
(1) The transfer period was temporary, up to one year at most;
(2) the level of wage reduction, approximately KRW 450,000 over six months, was not considered substantial;
(3) the employer provided the worker with staff accommodation and relocation expenses, thereby alleviating the economic and personal burden;
(4) the “team leader” role appears to be a supervisory function rather than a rank or position.
Taken together, it was difficult to find that the degree of personal disadvantage exceeded the level that could be tolerated under social norms.
C. Compliance with the duty to consult in good faith
It was confirmed that the employer had undergone a consultation process by holding several interviews with the worker and exchanging emails.
3. Gist of the Decision
A. Outline of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Business necessity
Because the regional headquarters had a small number of security guards, when a vacancy occurred the need to supplement personnel was recognized; and, taking into account that the employer determined the transferee in the order prescribed by the internal transfer operation standards, business necessity was acknowledged.
B. Degree of personal disadvantage
(1) The transfer period was temporary, up to one year at most;
(2) the level of wage reduction, approximately KRW 450,000 over six months, was not considered substantial;
(3) the employer provided the worker with staff accommodation and relocation expenses, thereby alleviating the economic and personal burden;
(4) the “team leader” role appears to be a supervisory function rather than a rank or position.
Taken together, it was difficult to find that the degree of personal disadvantage exceeded the level that could be tolerated under social norms.
C. Compliance with the duty to consult in good faith
It was confirmed that the employer had undergone a consultation process by holding several interviews with the worker and exchanging emails. /
[Further Related Decisions]
- ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision
- ‘Dismissal of Application (Non‑appearance at Hearing)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision – Decision date: – Case number: Dismissed
- ‘No Formation of Employment Promise (Absence of Offer Letter)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision – Decision date: – Case number: Initial Decision Upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, justifiability of transfer (transfer of security guards under the Security Services Act), personnel transfer/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.
※ You can view the previous article, “‘Probationary Employment Relationship (Failure to Meet Probation Evaluation Criteria)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to justifiability of transfer (transfer of security guards under the Security Services Act) can be found in the “List of Decisions on Justifiability of Transfer (Transfer of Security Guards under the Security Services Act).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “justifiability of transfer (transfer of security guards under the Security Services Act).”
Decision body: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission
Case: 2026Buhae133 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
Decision date: 2026.03.24 · Result: Dismissed
Summary of key issues:
A. Business necessity: The regional headquarters had a small number of security guards, so when a vacancy occurred, the need to supplement personnel was recognized; and the employer selected the transferee in the order prescribed by the internal transfer operation standards. Taken together, business necessity was acknowledged.
B. Degree of personal disadvantage: (1) The transfer period was temporary, up to one year at most; (2) the level of wage reduction, approximately KRW 450,000 over six months, was not considered substantial; (3) the employer…
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, a worker employed as a security guard under the Security Services Act refused to comply with a transfer order issued by the regional headquarters and filed an application with the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission for a remedy for unfair dismissal (arguing unfair dismissal accompanied by an unfair transfer).
The Labor Relations Commission focused on whether the employer’s transfer order constituted a legitimate exercise of its managerial prerogative, and comprehensively reviewed business necessity, the degree of personal (living) disadvantage, and whether the employer had fulfilled the duty to consult in good faith.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is:
“Where there is a need to supplement personnel due to a shortage of security guards, does a transfer made in accordance with the order set by the internal transfer operation standards constitute an unfair transfer or unfair dismissal on the grounds that it causes excessive personal disadvantage to the worker or that the consultation process was insufficient?”
Ⅲ. Outline of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case found that, because the regional headquarters had a small number of security guards, when a vacancy occurred there was business necessity to supplement personnel; that the employer selected the transferee in the order prescribed by the internal transfer operation standards, so the rationality of personnel selection was recognized; and that the transfer was a temporary measure for a maximum of one year, the wage reduction amounted to only about KRW 450,000 over six months, and the provision of accommodation and travel/relocation expenses significantly mitigated the worker’s personal disadvantage. In light of these factors, the Commission held that the transfer itself was justified.
Even though the worker had performed team leader duties, the Commission found that the “team leader” role was not a separate rank or position but merely a supervisory function, and thus it was difficult to view the transfer as a substantive demotion. Taking into account that the employer conducted multiple interviews and exchanged emails with the worker, thereby following the consultation procedures required under the principle of good faith, the Commission concluded that the transfer did not violate Article 23 of the Labor Standards Act and did not constitute an abuse of rights.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective)
From the worker’s standpoint, to successfully argue that a transfer or reassignment is unfair, it is necessary to specifically prove that the personal disadvantage goes significantly beyond the level that an ordinary worker could reasonably be expected to endure, and not merely that the transfer is inconvenient.
In particular, where the transfer period is temporary, the wage reduction is limited, and the company has taken mitigating measures such as providing accommodation and transportation expenses, it is important to understand that the Labor Relations Commission is unlikely to find an unfair transfer or unfair dismissal.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s side, when managing personnel such as security guards or similar occupations, it is important to prepare in advance objective materials that can substantiate the necessity of transfer, such as the current staffing status and internal transfer standards.
In addition, if the employer prepares mitigating measures to minimize wage and personal disadvantages arising from the transfer—such as providing accommodation and relocation expenses—and keeps records of the consultation process through interviews and emails, there is a higher likelihood that, in the event of disputes over redundancy dismissals or transfers before the Labor Relations Commission, the measures will be recognized as a legitimate exercise of managerial prerogative.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Business necessity
Because the regional headquarters had a small number of security guards, when a vacancy occurred the need to supplement personnel was recognized; and, taking into account that the employer determined the transferee in the order prescribed by the internal transfer operation standards, business necessity was acknowledged.
B. Degree of personal disadvantage
(1) The transfer period was temporary, up to one year at most;
(2) the level of wage reduction, approximately KRW 450,000 over six months, was not considered substantial;
(3) the employer provided the worker with staff accommodation and relocation expenses, thereby alleviating the economic and personal burden;
(4) the “team leader” role appears to be a supervisory function rather than a rank or position.
Taken together, it was difficult to find that the degree of personal disadvantage exceeded the level that could be tolerated under social norms.
C. Compliance with the duty to consult in good faith
It was confirmed that the employer had undergone a consultation process by holding several interviews with the worker and exchanging emails.
3. Gist of the Decision
A. Outline of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Business necessity
Because the regional headquarters had a small number of security guards, when a vacancy occurred the need to supplement personnel was recognized; and, taking into account that the employer determined the transferee in the order prescribed by the internal transfer operation standards, business necessity was acknowledged.
B. Degree of personal disadvantage
(1) The transfer period was temporary, up to one year at most;
(2) the level of wage reduction, approximately KRW 450,000 over six months, was not considered substantial;
(3) the employer provided the worker with staff accommodation and relocation expenses, thereby alleviating the economic and personal burden;
(4) the “team leader” role appears to be a supervisory function rather than a rank or position.
Taken together, it was difficult to find that the degree of personal disadvantage exceeded the level that could be tolerated under social norms.
C. Compliance with the duty to consult in good faith
It was confirmed that the employer had undergone a consultation process by holding several interviews with the worker and exchanging emails. /
[Further Related Decisions]
- ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision
- ‘Dismissal of Application (Non‑appearance at Hearing)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision – Decision date: – Case number: Dismissed
- ‘No Formation of Employment Promise (Absence of Offer Letter)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision – Decision date: – Case number: Initial Decision Upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, justifiability of transfer (transfer of security guards under the Security Services Act), personnel transfer/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.
※ You can view the previous article, “‘Probationary Employment Relationship (Failure to Meet Probation Evaluation Criteria)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to justifiability of transfer (transfer of security guards under the Security Services Act) can be found in the “List of Decisions on Justifiability of Transfer (Transfer of Security Guards under the Security Services Act).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
