Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal and Personnel Measures Decisions Relating to “Legitimacy of Transfer (Correction of Personnel Imbalance)” (Unfair Dismissal 491)
- Date2026/05/29 04:04
- Read 68
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “legitimacy of transfer (correction of personnel imbalance).”
Decision-making body: Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae77 ○ ○ ○ Unfair Dismissal Relief Application
2026.03.19 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issue:
□ Legitimacy of the transfer – The transfer was implemented for the purpose of “correcting personnel imbalance and improving operational efficiency,” so the business necessity of the transfer was recognized. Although the employee argued that the selection of the transferee was retaliatory, there was no objective evidence to support this claim; it was difficult to view the selection criteria as arbitrary or as an abuse of authority. In addition, it was not found that the disadvantages to the employee’s daily life caused by the transfer significantly exceeded the level that an employee is ordinarily expected to bear, and so on…
1. Legal Implications
This unfair dismissal decision by the Labor Relations Commission concerns a case in which the company carried out a transfer on the grounds of “correcting personnel imbalance and improving operational efficiency,” and the Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission ruled in favor of the employer. This is a type of case frequently encountered in practice by Labor Law Firm Law&, a typical situation where, although it does not rise to the level of a redundancy dismissal, the legitimacy of a transfer becomes the central issue in the course of personnel redeployment.
Ⅰ. Case Overview
The company faced a problem of personnel imbalance between regions and departments. As part of a personnel redeployment to correct this imbalance and improve operational efficiency, it issued a transfer order to the employee. The employee applied to the Labor Relations Commission for relief, claiming that the transfer was retaliatory and caused significant disadvantages in daily life. However, the Commission did not accept these arguments and recognized the legitimacy of the transfer.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether a transfer carried out under the pretext of “correcting personnel imbalance and improving operational efficiency” constitutes a legitimate exercise of managerial prerogative when, notwithstanding the employee’s allegation that it was a retaliatory personnel measure, the business necessity of the transfer, the reasonableness of the selection of personnel, the degree of disadvantage in daily life, and the consultation process are comprehensively taken into account.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case found that the employer implemented the transfer as a personnel measure “to correct personnel imbalance and improve operational efficiency,” and that under this objective there was a recognized need to change personnel allocation. It further found that there was no objective evidence to support the employee’s allegation of retaliatory personnel measures in the process of selecting the transferee, that it was difficult to view the selection criteria as arbitrary or as an abuse of authority, that it was not possible to conclude that the disadvantages to the employee’s daily life caused by the transfer significantly exceeded the level that an employee is ordinarily expected to bear, and that the consultation procedures required under the principle of good faith had been followed.
Accordingly, the panel held that this measure did not constitute a dismissal but rather a transfer, and that the transfer was a legitimate exercise of managerial prerogative.
In determining the legitimacy of the transfer, the Labor Relations Commission comprehensively considered: first, the business necessity of the transfer; second, the reasonableness of the selection of personnel; third, the degree of disadvantage in daily life; and fourth, the procedures such as consultation with the employee. In particular, consistent with Supreme Court precedent, the decision reaffirmed that whether a transfer constitutes an abuse of right must be determined by balancing these factors, and that a transfer does not become invalid merely because the employee feels disadvantaged.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s standpoint, in order to challenge a transfer as unfair, it is crucial to secure specific and objective evidence supporting the claim that it was a “retaliatory personnel measure,” beyond merely expressing dissatisfaction. It is also important to organize in detail whether the transfer has caused serious disadvantages in daily life that are difficult to ordinarily endure—such as in commuting, health, family care, and union activities—down to the level of dates, distances, time, and costs.
Records of what consultations took place with the company before and after the transfer (or that none took place), and how the employee expressed his or her views—such as emails, messenger records, and notes of meetings—also become important evidence in the event of a dispute. However, as in this case, where the business necessity is clear and the disadvantages in daily life do not exceed the ordinary range, it should be borne in mind that it is not easy to have the transfer itself recognized as an unfair personnel measure.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, it is important to prepare in advance materials that can objectively explain the business necessity of the transfer, such as data on the status of personnel imbalance, changes in the organizational chart, and analyses of labor costs and workload. When selecting transferees, as in redundancy dismissal case law, it is necessary to establish reasonable criteria that exclude arbitrariness and to keep records of how those criteria were actually applied.
Consultation with the employee should not be treated as a mere formality; the reasons and necessity for the transfer should be explained, and the employee’s circumstances should be heard and documented. In practice, it should also be noted that efforts to mitigate disadvantages in daily life after the transfer—through commuting support, provision of accommodation, payment of allowances, and the like—significantly increase the likelihood that the Labor Relations Commission or the courts will recognize the legitimacy of the transfer.
2. Matters Decided
a. Case Overview and Procedural History
□ Legitimacy of the transfer – The transfer was implemented for the purpose of “correcting personnel imbalance and improving operational efficiency,” so the business necessity of the transfer was recognized. Although the employee argued that the selection of the transferee was retaliatory, there was no objective evidence to support this claim; it was difficult to view the selection criteria as arbitrary or as an abuse of authority. It could not be regarded that the disadvantages to the employee’s daily life caused by the transfer significantly exceeded the level that an employee is ordinarily expected to bear, and the consultation procedures required under the principle of good faith were followed. Therefore, the transfer was legitimate.
3. Summary of the Decision
a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
□ Legitimacy of the transfer – The transfer was implemented for the purpose of “correcting personnel imbalance and improving operational efficiency,” so the business necessity of the transfer was recognized. Although the employee argued that the selection of the transferee was retaliatory, there was no objective evidence to support this claim; it was difficult to view the selection criteria as arbitrary or as an abuse of authority. It could not be regarded that the disadvantages to the employee’s daily life caused by the transfer significantly exceeded the level that an employee is ordinarily expected to bear, and the consultation procedures required under the principle of good faith were followed. Therefore, the transfer was legitimate. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “‘Failure to Satisfy Redundancy Dismissal Requirements (Workout Company)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
- “‘Expression of Intention to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
- “‘Dismissal (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Date of decision: - Case number: Dismissed
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, legitimacy of transfer (correction of personnel imbalance), transfer/reassignment, allegation of abuse of managerial prerogative, 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&.
※ The previous article, “‘Interpretation of Contract Term (Inconsistency Between Job Posting and Employment Contract)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of decisions relating to legitimacy of transfer (correction of personnel imbalance) can be viewed together in the “Legitimacy of Transfer (Correction of Personnel Imbalance) Related Decisions List.”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “legitimacy of transfer (correction of personnel imbalance).”
Decision-making body: Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae77 ○ ○ ○ Unfair Dismissal Relief Application
2026.03.19 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issue:
□ Legitimacy of the transfer – The transfer was implemented for the purpose of “correcting personnel imbalance and improving operational efficiency,” so the business necessity of the transfer was recognized. Although the employee argued that the selection of the transferee was retaliatory, there was no objective evidence to support this claim; it was difficult to view the selection criteria as arbitrary or as an abuse of authority. In addition, it was not found that the disadvantages to the employee’s daily life caused by the transfer significantly exceeded the level that an employee is ordinarily expected to bear, and so on…
1. Legal Implications
This unfair dismissal decision by the Labor Relations Commission concerns a case in which the company carried out a transfer on the grounds of “correcting personnel imbalance and improving operational efficiency,” and the Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission ruled in favor of the employer. This is a type of case frequently encountered in practice by Labor Law Firm Law&, a typical situation where, although it does not rise to the level of a redundancy dismissal, the legitimacy of a transfer becomes the central issue in the course of personnel redeployment.
Ⅰ. Case Overview
The company faced a problem of personnel imbalance between regions and departments. As part of a personnel redeployment to correct this imbalance and improve operational efficiency, it issued a transfer order to the employee. The employee applied to the Labor Relations Commission for relief, claiming that the transfer was retaliatory and caused significant disadvantages in daily life. However, the Commission did not accept these arguments and recognized the legitimacy of the transfer.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether a transfer carried out under the pretext of “correcting personnel imbalance and improving operational efficiency” constitutes a legitimate exercise of managerial prerogative when, notwithstanding the employee’s allegation that it was a retaliatory personnel measure, the business necessity of the transfer, the reasonableness of the selection of personnel, the degree of disadvantage in daily life, and the consultation process are comprehensively taken into account.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case found that the employer implemented the transfer as a personnel measure “to correct personnel imbalance and improve operational efficiency,” and that under this objective there was a recognized need to change personnel allocation. It further found that there was no objective evidence to support the employee’s allegation of retaliatory personnel measures in the process of selecting the transferee, that it was difficult to view the selection criteria as arbitrary or as an abuse of authority, that it was not possible to conclude that the disadvantages to the employee’s daily life caused by the transfer significantly exceeded the level that an employee is ordinarily expected to bear, and that the consultation procedures required under the principle of good faith had been followed.
Accordingly, the panel held that this measure did not constitute a dismissal but rather a transfer, and that the transfer was a legitimate exercise of managerial prerogative.
In determining the legitimacy of the transfer, the Labor Relations Commission comprehensively considered: first, the business necessity of the transfer; second, the reasonableness of the selection of personnel; third, the degree of disadvantage in daily life; and fourth, the procedures such as consultation with the employee. In particular, consistent with Supreme Court precedent, the decision reaffirmed that whether a transfer constitutes an abuse of right must be determined by balancing these factors, and that a transfer does not become invalid merely because the employee feels disadvantaged.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s standpoint, in order to challenge a transfer as unfair, it is crucial to secure specific and objective evidence supporting the claim that it was a “retaliatory personnel measure,” beyond merely expressing dissatisfaction. It is also important to organize in detail whether the transfer has caused serious disadvantages in daily life that are difficult to ordinarily endure—such as in commuting, health, family care, and union activities—down to the level of dates, distances, time, and costs.
Records of what consultations took place with the company before and after the transfer (or that none took place), and how the employee expressed his or her views—such as emails, messenger records, and notes of meetings—also become important evidence in the event of a dispute. However, as in this case, where the business necessity is clear and the disadvantages in daily life do not exceed the ordinary range, it should be borne in mind that it is not easy to have the transfer itself recognized as an unfair personnel measure.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, it is important to prepare in advance materials that can objectively explain the business necessity of the transfer, such as data on the status of personnel imbalance, changes in the organizational chart, and analyses of labor costs and workload. When selecting transferees, as in redundancy dismissal case law, it is necessary to establish reasonable criteria that exclude arbitrariness and to keep records of how those criteria were actually applied.
Consultation with the employee should not be treated as a mere formality; the reasons and necessity for the transfer should be explained, and the employee’s circumstances should be heard and documented. In practice, it should also be noted that efforts to mitigate disadvantages in daily life after the transfer—through commuting support, provision of accommodation, payment of allowances, and the like—significantly increase the likelihood that the Labor Relations Commission or the courts will recognize the legitimacy of the transfer.
2. Matters Decided
a. Case Overview and Procedural History
□ Legitimacy of the transfer – The transfer was implemented for the purpose of “correcting personnel imbalance and improving operational efficiency,” so the business necessity of the transfer was recognized. Although the employee argued that the selection of the transferee was retaliatory, there was no objective evidence to support this claim; it was difficult to view the selection criteria as arbitrary or as an abuse of authority. It could not be regarded that the disadvantages to the employee’s daily life caused by the transfer significantly exceeded the level that an employee is ordinarily expected to bear, and the consultation procedures required under the principle of good faith were followed. Therefore, the transfer was legitimate.
3. Summary of the Decision
a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
□ Legitimacy of the transfer – The transfer was implemented for the purpose of “correcting personnel imbalance and improving operational efficiency,” so the business necessity of the transfer was recognized. Although the employee argued that the selection of the transferee was retaliatory, there was no objective evidence to support this claim; it was difficult to view the selection criteria as arbitrary or as an abuse of authority. It could not be regarded that the disadvantages to the employee’s daily life caused by the transfer significantly exceeded the level that an employee is ordinarily expected to bear, and the consultation procedures required under the principle of good faith were followed. Therefore, the transfer was legitimate. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “‘Failure to Satisfy Redundancy Dismissal Requirements (Workout Company)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
- “‘Expression of Intention to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
- “‘Dismissal (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Date of decision: - Case number: Dismissed
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, legitimacy of transfer (correction of personnel imbalance), transfer/reassignment, allegation of abuse of managerial prerogative, 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&.
※ The previous article, “‘Interpretation of Contract Term (Inconsistency Between Job Posting and Employment Contract)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of decisions relating to legitimacy of transfer (correction of personnel imbalance) can be viewed together in the “Legitimacy of Transfer (Correction of Personnel Imbalance) Related Decisions List.”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
