[Case Information] This case is a decision in which the employer ultimately prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “business necessity (transfer of head nurse to Ward 55).” Decision body: Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission Case No. 2026부해220 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal Decision date: 2026-07-06 · Result: Dismissed Summary of key issues: A. Whether there was business necessity for the transfer The transfer fell under ad hoc personnel changes conducted monthly pursuant to Article 32 of the hospital’s Personnel Regulations, and was a personnel appointment affecting approximately 30 employees, not only the employee in this case. It therefore could not be viewed as a retaliatory personnel measure targeting this employee. 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview In this case, a head nurse employed at a hospital filed an application with the Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission seeking a remedy for unfair dismissal and unfair transfer. The hospital argued that the transfer was a legitimate exercise of its right to manage personnel, carried out as part of ad hoc personnel changes under its Personnel Regulations. The employee claimed that only she had been subjected to retaliatory personnel measures and disadvantages in her personal life. The Labor Relations Commission ultimately focused on whether the transfer was justified and ruled in favor of the employer. Ⅱ. Summary of Issues The issue in this case is whether, in the course of ad hoc personnel changes implemented by the hospital pursuant to its Personnel Regulations, the measure transferring the head nurse to the position of head nurse of Ward 55 was a legitimate exercise of managerial prerogative, supported by business necessity and not imposing disadvantages in her personal life beyond what is ordinarily tolerable, or whether it constituted an unfair transfer tantamount to unfair dismissal. Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning The panel in this case noted that the employer issued personnel appointments to approximately 30 employees at the same time as part of the ad hoc personnel changes conducted monthly pursuant to Article 32 of the hospital’s Personnel Regulations; that a vacancy arose because the existing head nurse of Ward 55 was transferred to another department, and the employee in this case, who had substantial experience as a head nurse, was transferred to that position; and that, as there was no reduction in wages or substantial change in commuting time resulting from the transfer, it was difficult to regard the disadvantages in her personal life as significant. In light of these circumstances, the panel held that the dismissal measure in this case could not be regarded as a retaliatory transfer or an abuse of rights constituting unfair dismissal or unfair transfer, and that it was a legitimate transfer supported by objective business necessity for staffing allocation and filling a vacancy. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) From the employee’s standpoint, even if there is dissatisfaction with a transfer, the mere fact that the employee dislikes the transfer or has had conflicts with a superior is not, by itself, sufficient for the transfer to be recognized as unfair or as amounting to unfair dismissal. To successfully challenge a transfer before the Labor Relations Commission, it is necessary to specifically prove that there was no business necessity for the transfer, that the personnel measure was retaliatory and targeted only at the employee, or that the disadvantages in personal life—such as wages, working hours, and commuting distance—clearly exceed the range ordinarily tolerable. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s/Company’s Perspective) From the perspective of the employer or hospital, it is important to clearly set out in the Personnel Regulations the standards for transfer and reassignment and the method of operating ad hoc personnel changes, and to accumulate objective records showing that regular and ad hoc personnel changes have in fact been repeatedly implemented for multiple employees. In addition, transfers should be designed so that disadvantages in terms of wages, place of work, and commuting time are minimized, and, where necessary, the employer should go through procedures for explanation and consultation so that the exercise of managerial prerogative is not mistaken for unfair dismissal. In order to prevail in disputes involving this type of transfer or redundancy dismissal, it is important to prepare in advance materials capable of proving business necessity for the transfer, the reasonableness of the selection of personnel, and the degree of disadvantage in personal life, and to structure the case with a full understanding of the legal principles established in the decisions of the Labor Relations Commission and the courts. (ⓒ2026 copyright. Labor Attorney Moon Young-seop, Labor Law Firm Law&.) 2. Matters Decided A. Case Overview and Procedural History A. Whether there was business necessity for the transfer The transfer fell under ad hoc personnel changes conducted monthly pursuant to Article 32 of the hospital’s Personnel Regulations, and was a personnel appointment affecting approximately 30 employees, not only the employee in this case. It therefore could not be viewed as a retaliatory personnel measure targeting this employee. In addition, due to the transfer of the head nurse of Ward 55 to another department, the employee in this case, who had substantial experience as a head nurse, was transferred to the position of head nurse of Ward 55, and thus business necessity for the transfer is recognized. B. Whether there were disadvantages in personal life Because the transfer did not result in any reduction in wages or change in commuting time for the employee, it is difficult to find that there were disadvantages in her personal life… 3. Summary of the Decision A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning A. Whether there was business necessity for the transfer The transfer fell under ad hoc personnel changes conducted monthly pursuant to Article 32 of the hospital’s Personnel Regulations, and was a personnel appointment affecting approximately 30 employees, not only the employee in this case. It therefore could not be viewed as a retaliatory personnel measure targeting this employee. In addition, due to the transfer of the head nurse of Ward 55 to another department, the employee in this case, who had substantial experience as a head nurse, was transferred to the position of head nurse of Ward 55, and thus business necessity for the transfer is recognized. B. Whether there were disadvantages in personal life Because the transfer did not result in any reduction in wages or change in commuting time for the employee, it is difficult to find that there were disadvantages in her personal life… / [See More Related Decisions] - ‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision - ‘Dismissal of Application on Procedural Grounds (Failure to Appear at Two Hearings)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision - ‘No Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision – Decision date: – Case result: First-instance decision upheld [Tags] Unfair dismissal, Business necessity (transfer of head nurse to Ward 55), personnel movement/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 the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&. ※ You can view the previous article, “‘Dismissal of Application on Procedural Grounds (Failure to Appear at Two Hearings)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window. ※ The list of decisions related to business necessity (transfer of head nurse to Ward 55) can be viewed together on the “Business Necessity (Transfer of Head Nurse to Ward 55) Related Decisions” page. ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article