[Case Information] This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “business necessity (transfer of the head nurse of Ward 55).” Decision date: 2026-07-06 · Decision body: Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission · Case No.: 2026Buhae220 Key issue summary: A. Whether there was business necessity for the transfer The transfer fell under ad hoc personnel measures implemented monthly pursuant to Article 32 of the hospital’s personnel regulations, and was a personnel order affecting approximately 30 employees including the employee in this case. It could not be viewed as a retaliatory personnel order directed at this employee. 1. Legal Implications This article examines the criteria for assessing transfers and unfair transfers, through a Labor Relations Commission case where the legitimacy of a transfer order—rather than a direct dismissal—was at issue in the context of unfair dismissal. Focusing on Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission Decision 2026Buhae220, we will summarize, together with the practical experience of Labor Law Firm Law&, the standards applied by the Commission in determining the legitimacy of a transfer and the practical implications for both employees and employers. Ⅰ. Case Overview This case concerns the lawfulness of a measure taken by a hospital-operating employer in the course of ad hoc personnel appointments made under its personnel regulations, whereby a nurse was transferred to the position of head nurse of Ward 55. The employee applied to the Labor Relations Commission for relief, arguing that the transfer was in substance a retaliatory personnel measure, that it caused significant disadvantages in her daily life, and that it was an unfair personnel action carried out without proper consultation procedures. Ⅱ. Issues The issue in this case is whether a transfer carried out in the form of an ad hoc personnel appointment under the hospital’s personnel regulations can be regarded as an unfair transfer equivalent to unfair dismissal where business necessity is recognized, the disadvantages in the employee’s daily life are not substantial, and any defects in the consultation procedure are not serious. Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning The panel held that business necessity for the transfer was established, in light of the following: the employer implemented personnel orders for approximately 30 employees at the same time as part of the ad hoc personnel measures conducted monthly pursuant to Article 32 of the hospital’s personnel regulations; the employee in this case was not singled out for a separate personnel order, making it difficult to view the transfer as retaliatory; and the employee, who had considerable experience as a head nurse, was assigned to the position of head nurse of Ward 55 in order to fill a vacancy in that position. The panel also noted that, following the transfer, the employee’s wages did not decrease and her commuting time did not change, making it difficult to find that she suffered disadvantages in her daily life in economic or time-related terms. It further held that any disadvantages in her daily life could not be seen as significantly exceeding the level that employees are ordinarily expected to endure. In addition, the panel found that it was difficult to conclude that there had been no consultation at all, given that the employee had directly expressed to the Head of Nursing Team 2 on 18 April 2026 that she found it difficult to work in the department to which she had been transferred. Even assuming that a separate, formal consultation procedure had not been fully conducted, the panel held that this did not amount to a serious procedural violation sufficient to determine the legitimacy of the transfer. Taking all of these factors into account, the panel concluded that the transfer in this case was a legitimate exercise of managerial prerogative within the scope of the employer’s personnel authority. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) Unlike dismissal, transfers and reassignments in principle fall within the scope of the employer’s discretion over personnel matters. Therefore, to challenge an unfair transfer, mere dissatisfaction is not enough: the employee must specifically prove that there was no business necessity, that the transfer was retaliatory or punitive in nature, or that the disadvantages in daily life significantly exceeded the level ordinarily to be endured. Employees should prepare objective evidence of disadvantage in advance, such as wage reductions, sharp increases in commuting time or costs, and serious impacts on health or family life. Employees should also bear in mind that, even if the consultation procedure was somewhat inadequate, it is generally difficult under case law and Labor Relations Commission practice to regard a transfer as unfair where the legitimacy of the transfer is recognized after balancing business necessity against disadvantages in daily life. Accordingly, if an employee objects to a transfer, it is advisable to consider a strategy of complying with the transfer order while simultaneously seeking relief through an application to the Labor Relations Commission or litigation, rather than refusing the transfer outright. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective) From the employer’s perspective, for a transfer or reassignment to be recognized as a legitimate exercise of personnel authority, the following are important. First, the employer must establish a personnel system based on personnel regulations and rules of employment, and be able to prove that actual personnel orders are implemented consistently in accordance with those rules. Second, the employer should organize and document the specific reasons demonstrating business necessity for the transfer—such as the need to reallocate staff, enhance organizational efficiency, or fill a vacancy—and be able to explain the rationality of including a particular employee among the transfer targets. Third, to minimize disadvantages in the employee’s daily life, the employer should review in advance whether there will be changes in wages, work location, or work patterns, and, where unavoidable disadvantages exist, present measures to mitigate their extent. Finally, consultation with the employee should not be a mere formality; it should involve explaining the necessity and reasons for the transfer and hearing the employee’s views. On the premise that defects in the consultation procedure alone do not render a transfer invalid, employers should keep records of the content and course of consultations in writing or in interview notes. 2. Matters Decided A. Case Overview and Procedural History A case in which a transfer was held to be a legitimate personnel measure, on the grounds that it was an ad hoc personnel appointment under the personnel regulations, that there were no disadvantages in the employee’s daily life, and that there were no procedural defects. 3. Summary of 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 measures implemented monthly pursuant to Article 32 of the hospital’s personnel regulations, and was a personnel order affecting approximately 30 employees including the employee in this case. It could not be viewed as a retaliatory personnel order directed at this employee. In addition, due to the transfer of the former head nurse of Ward 55 to another department, the employee in this case, who had considerable experience as a head nurse, was transferred to the position of head nurse of Ward 55. Accordingly, business necessity for the transfer is recognized. B. Whether there were disadvantages in the employee’s daily life Because the transfer did not result in any reduction in the employee’s wages or any change in commuting time, it is difficult to find that there were disadvantages in the employee’s daily life. C. Whether procedures, including good-faith consultation with the employee, were observed In light of the fact that on 18 April 2026 the employee expressed to the Head of Nursing Team 2 that she found it difficult to work in the department to which she had been transferred, it is difficult to conclude that there was no consultation procedure at all. Even if the consultation procedure was not carried out, that alone does not render the transfer unlawful. [See More Related Decisions] - “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Business Necessity (Reassignment of Cleaner)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Interest in Relief · Refusal to Rehire (Post-Retirement Fixed-Term Employee)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Excessive Disciplinary Measure (Negligent Management and Supervision)’” [Tags] Unfair dismissal, business necessity (transfer of head nurse of Ward 55), personnel order · 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, “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Dismissal of Application (Failure to Appear at Two Hearings)’,” in a new window. ※ A list of decisions related to business necessity (transfer of head nurse of Ward 55) can be found under “List of Decisions Related to Business Necessity (Transfer of Head Nurse of Ward 55).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article