[Case Information] This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of the “justifiability of transfer (replacement of union operations manager).” Decision body: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae1434 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal 2026-07-01 · Case result: Dismissed Summary of key issues: The employee’s transfer (i) was recognized as necessary for business operations as part of a chain of personnel changes following the replacement of the union operations manager; (ii) did not cause disadvantages in the employee’s personal life that significantly exceeded the level ordinarily to be borne by workers; and (iii) could not be deemed unfair solely because no prior consultation procedure was conducted. Accordingly, the transfer was held to be justified. / 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview This case concerns a situation where the employer, in the course of reallocating personnel triggered by the replacement of the labor union’s operations manager, issued a transfer order to an employee who appeared to be a union officer. The employee applied to the Labor Relations Commission for relief, asserting that the transfer caused substantial disadvantages in his personal life and that, because no prior consultation procedure had been followed, the measure was an unfair personnel action equivalent to unfair dismissal. The Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission, after comprehensively examining the business necessity of the transfer order, the degree of disadvantage in the employee’s personal life, and whether any consultation procedure had been carried out, ruled in favor of the employer. Ⅱ. Summary of Issues The issue in this case is: “Where a transfer carried out under the pretext of a chain of personnel changes following the replacement of the union operations manager falls within the scope of recognized business necessity and the disadvantages to the employee’s personal life do not exceed the level ordinarily to be borne, can the transfer be regarded as an unfair transfer (a personnel measure equivalent to unfair dismissal) solely on the ground that no separate prior consultation procedure was conducted?” Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning The panel in this case noted that the employer, following the replacement of the union operations manager, unavoidably implemented a chain of personnel changes for organizational management reasons; that, in this process, the applicant’s transfer was likewise based on an objective need to adjust personnel allocation; that it was difficult to view the disadvantages in the employee’s personal life resulting from the transfer—such as changes in commuting and duties—as significantly exceeding the range ordinarily to be borne by workers; and that, even though no separate prior consultation procedure was followed in the course of the transfer, it was difficult to regard this as rising to the level of a violation of Article 23 of the Labor Standards Act or an abuse of managerial prerogative. Accordingly, the Commission held that the transfer in this case was supported by business necessity and that the disadvantages in the employee’s personal life did not exceed the tolerable limit, and therefore could not be considered unfair merely because there had been no prior consultation. In conclusion, the Commission determined that the dismissal in this case did not constitute unfair dismissal and was a legitimate exercise of managerial prerogative. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) From the employee’s standpoint, to challenge a transfer or reassignment as unfair, it is not sufficient merely to assert that it was “sudden” or that “there was no consultation.” You must prove with specific evidence that the transfer clearly exceeds the ordinary tolerable range of disadvantages in personal life—for example, a drastic increase in commuting time, concerns about deterioration of health, or economic loss at a level that could ruin the household finances—and that you were selected as a transfer target in a particularly unreasonable manner during the selection process. In addition, if the transfer was made in connection with your status as a union officer or your union activities, it is important to separately and systematically collect and organize materials showing that the employer’s purpose in ordering the transfer constitutes an unfair labor practice (such as the employer’s statements before and after the transfer, and comparisons with similar cases). Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s/Company’s Perspective) From the employer’s standpoint, in order for a transfer or reassignment to be evaluated as justified, first, you should document the objective necessity for the change in personnel allocation (such as organizational restructuring, replacement of persons in charge, or changes in workload). Second, it is advisable to establish in advance reasonable criteria for selecting employees to be transferred and to be prepared to explain how those criteria were applied. Furthermore, even if prior consultation is not always legally mandatory, keeping records of sincere communication with the employee before and after the transfer can work in your favor when assessing whether there has been an abuse of rights. By consulting with a specialized institution such as Labor Law Firm Law&, and by establishing in advance clear standards and procedures for personnel measures and transfers, you can significantly enhance your ability to defend against future disputes before the Labor Relations Commission. 2. Matters Decided A. Case Overview and Procedural History The employee’s transfer (i) was recognized as necessary for business operations as part of a chain of personnel changes following the replacement of the union operations manager; (ii) did not cause disadvantages in the employee’s personal life that significantly exceeded the level ordinarily to be borne by workers; and (iii) could not be deemed unfair solely because no prior consultation procedure was conducted. Accordingly, the transfer was held to be justified. 3. Summary of Decision A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning The employee’s transfer (i) was recognized as necessary for business operations as part of a chain of personnel changes following the replacement of the union operations manager; (ii) did not cause disadvantages in the employee’s personal life that significantly exceeded the level ordinarily to be borne by workers; and (iii) could not be deemed unfair solely because no prior consultation procedure was conducted. Accordingly, the transfer was held to be justified. / [See More Related Decisions] - “‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” - “‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark Made by Telephone)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” - “‘Dismissal of Application (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Date of decision: - Case result: Dismissed [Tags] Unfair dismissal, justifiability of transfer (replacement of union operations manager), transfer/reassignment, abuse of managerial prerogative, 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, “‘Excessive Disciplinary Sanction (Electronic Processing of Medical Fee Refunds)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window. ※ The list of decisions related to the justifiability of transfer (replacement of union operations manager) can be viewed together on the “List of Decisions on Justifiability of Transfer (Replacement of Union Operations Manager)” page. ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article