Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Decision on “Reasonableness of Transfer (Night Shift for Maintenance Team)” (Unfair Dismissal 497)
- Date2026/06/05 04:04
- Read 44
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “reasonableness of transfer (night shift for maintenance team).”
Decision body: Busan Regional Labor Relations Commission, Case No. 2026부해99 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
Decision date: 2026.03.18 · Result: Dismissed
Summary of key issues:
A. Business necessity: The transfer was made pursuant to internal transfer criteria in order to operate the essential maintenance team’s night shift, and thus business necessity was recognized.
1. Legal Implications
In this unfair dismissal case, the dispute before the Labor Relations Commission centered on the legitimacy of the transfer order. The main issue was how the Commission would assess business necessity, the degree of personal hardship, and compliance with consultation procedures in relation to the transfer. This is a type of case frequently encountered in practice by Labor Law Firm Law&, and it clearly shows that even if personnel changes do not rise to the level of workforce reduction through redundancy, they can still be connected to claims of unfair dismissal.
Ⅰ. Case Overview
To ensure stable operation of the essential maintenance team’s night shift, the employer issued transfer orders relocating employees to other worksites in accordance with its internal transfer criteria. The employees, citing circumstances such as caring for ill family members and childcare, argued that the transfers were unfair and filed applications for remedy for unfair dismissal (unfair transfer). In Case No. 2026부해99, the Busan Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the employees’ applications.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case was whether, in a situation where a transfer order was issued to operate the essential maintenance team’s night shift, the transfer could be deemed an abuse of rights and thus constitute an unfair dismissal (unfair transfer) on the grounds of lack of business necessity, personal hardship, and deficiencies in prior consultation procedures.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel held that the employer had allocated personnel in accordance with transfer criteria in order to operate the essential maintenance team’s night shift; that there were no substantial changes in wages or place of residence as a result of the transfer; and that, although the employees had circumstances such as caring for ill family members and childcare, it was difficult to regard these as personal hardships that clearly exceeded the level ordinarily to be borne. In light of these factors, the Commission recognized business necessity for the transfer and found that the personal hardship was limited.
The employees argued that there were procedural defects in the transfer due to insufficient prior consultation. However, the Labor Relations Commission held that, even if the consultation required under the principle of good faith was somewhat lacking in the course of the transfer, that fact alone was insufficient to conclude that the transfer violated the Labor Standards Act or constituted an abuse of rights.
Ultimately, the Commission found that the dismissal disposition in this case fell within the scope of a legitimate exercise of managerial prerogative, when comprehensively considering business necessity for the transfer, the balancing of personal hardship, and the extent to which consultation procedures were carried out, and therefore did not find it to be unfair.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, to challenge a transfer as unfair, mere family circumstances or inconvenience are not enough. You must specifically prove that personal hardship of such a degree that it is ordinarily difficult to endure has arisen across areas such as wages, commuting, and health. It is also important to gather materials showing that the employer’s transfer criteria were arbitrary or used for disciplinary or retaliatory purposes, or that, despite the availability of alternatives, an excessively burdensome transfer was imposed only on certain individuals.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, in order to be able to explain the business necessity of a transfer order with objective materials, you should document the maintenance staffing plan, the basis for calculating the necessary number of night-shift workers, the transfer criteria, and the selection process. In addition, you should prepare support measures to minimize any substantive disadvantages regarding wages, housing, and commuting, and keep records showing that, through prior consultation or explanatory procedures, you considered to some extent the employees’ family and health circumstances. Doing so will make it easier to have the legitimacy of the transfer recognized by the Labor Relations Commission.
In personnel-transfer disputes of this type, it is crucial in practice to carefully organize the facts around three axes: business necessity for the transfer, the degree of personal hardship to the employee, and the thoroughness of the consultation process. These are the core points for addressing the issues in dispute.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case overview and procedural history
A. Business necessity
The transfer was carried out pursuant to transfer criteria in order to operate the essential maintenance team’s night shift, and thus business necessity is recognized.
B. Personal hardship
There was no disadvantage such as changes in wages or place of residence due to the transfer, and although the employees had circumstances such as caring for ill family members and childcare, these were not deemed to constitute personal hardship arising from the transfer.
C. Compliance with consultation procedures required under the principle of good faith
Even if the employer was somewhat negligent in conducting prior consultation, that fact alone does not mean that there was a procedural defect rendering the transfer automatically null and void.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s reasoning
A. Business necessity
The transfer was carried out pursuant to transfer criteria in order to operate the essential maintenance team’s night shift, and thus business necessity is recognized.
B. Personal hardship
There was no disadvantage such as changes in wages or place of residence due to the transfer, and although the employees had circumstances such as caring for ill family members and childcare, these were not deemed to constitute personal hardship arising from the transfer.
C. Compliance with consultation procedures required under the principle of good faith
Even if the employer was somewhat negligent in conducting prior consultation, that fact alone does not mean that there was a procedural defect rendering the transfer automatically null and void. /
[See More 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
- “‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, reasonableness of transfer (night shift for maintenance team), personnel transfer · reassignment, 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 one of the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ You can view the previous article, “‘Non-Existence of Expectation of Renewal (Conversion to Open Recruitment)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to reasonableness of transfer (night shift for maintenance team) can be viewed together in the “List of Decisions Related to Reasonableness of Transfer (Night Shift for Maintenance Team).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “reasonableness of transfer (night shift for maintenance team).”
Decision body: Busan Regional Labor Relations Commission, Case No. 2026부해99 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
Decision date: 2026.03.18 · Result: Dismissed
Summary of key issues:
A. Business necessity: The transfer was made pursuant to internal transfer criteria in order to operate the essential maintenance team’s night shift, and thus business necessity was recognized.
1. Legal Implications
In this unfair dismissal case, the dispute before the Labor Relations Commission centered on the legitimacy of the transfer order. The main issue was how the Commission would assess business necessity, the degree of personal hardship, and compliance with consultation procedures in relation to the transfer. This is a type of case frequently encountered in practice by Labor Law Firm Law&, and it clearly shows that even if personnel changes do not rise to the level of workforce reduction through redundancy, they can still be connected to claims of unfair dismissal.
Ⅰ. Case Overview
To ensure stable operation of the essential maintenance team’s night shift, the employer issued transfer orders relocating employees to other worksites in accordance with its internal transfer criteria. The employees, citing circumstances such as caring for ill family members and childcare, argued that the transfers were unfair and filed applications for remedy for unfair dismissal (unfair transfer). In Case No. 2026부해99, the Busan Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the employees’ applications.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case was whether, in a situation where a transfer order was issued to operate the essential maintenance team’s night shift, the transfer could be deemed an abuse of rights and thus constitute an unfair dismissal (unfair transfer) on the grounds of lack of business necessity, personal hardship, and deficiencies in prior consultation procedures.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel held that the employer had allocated personnel in accordance with transfer criteria in order to operate the essential maintenance team’s night shift; that there were no substantial changes in wages or place of residence as a result of the transfer; and that, although the employees had circumstances such as caring for ill family members and childcare, it was difficult to regard these as personal hardships that clearly exceeded the level ordinarily to be borne. In light of these factors, the Commission recognized business necessity for the transfer and found that the personal hardship was limited.
The employees argued that there were procedural defects in the transfer due to insufficient prior consultation. However, the Labor Relations Commission held that, even if the consultation required under the principle of good faith was somewhat lacking in the course of the transfer, that fact alone was insufficient to conclude that the transfer violated the Labor Standards Act or constituted an abuse of rights.
Ultimately, the Commission found that the dismissal disposition in this case fell within the scope of a legitimate exercise of managerial prerogative, when comprehensively considering business necessity for the transfer, the balancing of personal hardship, and the extent to which consultation procedures were carried out, and therefore did not find it to be unfair.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, to challenge a transfer as unfair, mere family circumstances or inconvenience are not enough. You must specifically prove that personal hardship of such a degree that it is ordinarily difficult to endure has arisen across areas such as wages, commuting, and health. It is also important to gather materials showing that the employer’s transfer criteria were arbitrary or used for disciplinary or retaliatory purposes, or that, despite the availability of alternatives, an excessively burdensome transfer was imposed only on certain individuals.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, in order to be able to explain the business necessity of a transfer order with objective materials, you should document the maintenance staffing plan, the basis for calculating the necessary number of night-shift workers, the transfer criteria, and the selection process. In addition, you should prepare support measures to minimize any substantive disadvantages regarding wages, housing, and commuting, and keep records showing that, through prior consultation or explanatory procedures, you considered to some extent the employees’ family and health circumstances. Doing so will make it easier to have the legitimacy of the transfer recognized by the Labor Relations Commission.
In personnel-transfer disputes of this type, it is crucial in practice to carefully organize the facts around three axes: business necessity for the transfer, the degree of personal hardship to the employee, and the thoroughness of the consultation process. These are the core points for addressing the issues in dispute.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case overview and procedural history
A. Business necessity
The transfer was carried out pursuant to transfer criteria in order to operate the essential maintenance team’s night shift, and thus business necessity is recognized.
B. Personal hardship
There was no disadvantage such as changes in wages or place of residence due to the transfer, and although the employees had circumstances such as caring for ill family members and childcare, these were not deemed to constitute personal hardship arising from the transfer.
C. Compliance with consultation procedures required under the principle of good faith
Even if the employer was somewhat negligent in conducting prior consultation, that fact alone does not mean that there was a procedural defect rendering the transfer automatically null and void.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s reasoning
A. Business necessity
The transfer was carried out pursuant to transfer criteria in order to operate the essential maintenance team’s night shift, and thus business necessity is recognized.
B. Personal hardship
There was no disadvantage such as changes in wages or place of residence due to the transfer, and although the employees had circumstances such as caring for ill family members and childcare, these were not deemed to constitute personal hardship arising from the transfer.
C. Compliance with consultation procedures required under the principle of good faith
Even if the employer was somewhat negligent in conducting prior consultation, that fact alone does not mean that there was a procedural defect rendering the transfer automatically null and void. /
[See More 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
- “‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, reasonableness of transfer (night shift for maintenance team), personnel transfer · reassignment, 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 one of the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ You can view the previous article, “‘Non-Existence of Expectation of Renewal (Conversion to Open Recruitment)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to reasonableness of transfer (night shift for maintenance team) can be viewed together in the “List of Decisions Related to Reasonableness of Transfer (Night Shift for Maintenance Team).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
