[Case Information] This case is a precedent in which the issue of “reassignment (seafarer → wind power manager)” was ultimately concluded by revoking the first-instance decision. Decision body: Central Labor Relations Commission 2026BuHae112 ○ ○ ○ Application for Re‑examination for Remedy of Unfair Dismissal 2026-06-29 · Case No.: First-instance decision revoked Key issue summary: 1. 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview In this case, an employee who had terminated his seafarer duties due to the sale of a vessel entered into a new employment contract for the position “Wind Power (Manager)” at the Incheon office, utilizing his experience related to wind farms. Subsequently, during the employer’s personnel redeployment process, the employee claimed unfair dismissal and filed for relief with the Labor Relations Commission. The employment contract included a reassignment clause providing that the place of work could be changed as necessary for business reasons. The employer implemented personnel measures citing a decrease in wind power work and the need to reinforce personnel for shipbuilding supervision duties. Ⅱ. Issues in Dispute The issue in this case is whether, with respect to an employee reassigned from seafarer to “Wind Power (Manager),” the employer’s reassignment and dismissal measures based on a reduction in wind power work and staffing needs in another department constituted a legitimate exercise of managerial prerogative, or whether they amounted to an unfair dismissal equivalent to a redundancy dismissal. Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning The panel in this case appears to have considered the following: from the time of contract formation, the parties clearly specified the position as “Wind Power (Manager)” in order to utilize the employee’s wind power–related experience, and designated the Incheon office as the place of work, while at the same time agreeing that the place of work could be changed as necessary for business reasons; the employer presented specific managerial and operational needs, namely the continuous decrease in wind power work and the need to reinforce personnel for shipbuilding supervision duties; and there was insufficient evidence to conclude that the measures went beyond a mere exercise of managerial prerogative and in substance constituted unilateral dismissal or a disguised redundancy dismissal. In light of these factors, it is highly likely that the panel found it difficult to conclude that the dismissal in this case was entirely unjustified, given the employer’s business needs and the contractual clause permitting reassignment. However, in the actual decision, the Commission would have ultimately determined whether the dismissal was unfair by comprehensively examining the specific procedures for reassignment, the reasonableness of the selection of the employee concerned, and the degree of hardship imposed on the employee’s livelihood. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) From the employee’s standpoint, when transferring from a seafaring role to a shore-based position, it is essential to carefully check how the place of work, duties, and reassignment clauses are stipulated. In particular, where there is a clause allowing a change in the place of work “as necessary for business reasons,” it is important to secure evidence as to the actual criteria and procedures by which reassignment and dismissal were carried out, and whether you were treated less favorably than other employees. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective) From the employer’s standpoint, where personnel adjustments equivalent to vessel sale, business downsizing, or redundancy dismissal are necessary, you should not rely solely on the reassignment clause in the contract. You must keep documentary records that can objectively substantiate business necessity, the criteria for selecting affected employees, and the progress of the procedures. In particular, if there were operational needs such as a reduction in wind power work and reinforcement of personnel for shipbuilding supervision duties, it is crucial in Labor Relations Commission disputes to organize and retain data such as figures, organizational charts, and records of changes in job assignments. In this type of case, both employees and companies should accurately understand the legal standards for unfair dismissal and redundancy dismissal, as well as the legal principles governing reassignment, and from the initial stage seek advice from a specialized labor law firm such as Labor Law Firm Law& to develop a response strategy. 2. Matters Decided A. Case Overview and Procedural History 1. Background to the Employment Contract The employee had been working as a seafarer employed by the employer. Due to the sale of the vessel, his seafarer duties were terminated and a new contract was concluded. At that time, the employee had been serving as a seafarer on a vessel operating in a wind farm. In order to utilize the wind power–related experience the employee had accumulated while working as a seafarer, the parties entered into an employment contract dated 7 May 2025, which specified the place of work as “Incheon office” and the duties as “Wind Power (Manager),” and provided that the “place of work” could be changed as necessary for business reasons. 2. Business Necessity The employer cited a continuous decrease in wind power work and the need to reinforce personnel for shipbuilding supervision duties… 3. Summary of the Decision A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning 1. Background to the Employment Contract The employee had been working as a seafarer employed by the employer. Due to the sale of the vessel, his seafarer duties were terminated and a new contract was concluded. At that time, the employee had been serving as a seafarer on a vessel operating in a wind farm. In order to utilize the wind power–related experience the employee had accumulated while working as a seafarer, the parties entered into an employment contract dated 7 May 2025, which specified the place of work as “Incheon office” and the duties as “Wind Power (Manager),” and provided that the “place of work” could be changed as necessary for business reasons. 2. Business Necessity The employer cited a continuous decrease in wind power work and the need to reinforce personnel for shipbuilding supervision duties… / [More Related Decisions] - “Unmet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)” – Unfair Dismissal Decision - “Dismissal of Application (Nonappearance at Hearing)” – Unfair Dismissal Decision – Date of decision: – Case No.: Dismissed - “Non-formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)” – Unfair Dismissal Decision – Date of decision: – Case No.: First-instance decision upheld [Tags] Unfair dismissal, reassignment (seafarer → wind power manager), personnel appointment/transfer, performance evaluation/poor performance, 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, “‘Mutual Intent to Convert to Regular Employment (Expiry of Fixed-term Contract)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision,” can be viewed in a new window. ※ The list of decisions related to reassignment (seafarer → wind power manager) can be viewed together on the “List of Decisions Related to Reassignment (Seafarer → Wind Power Manager)” page. ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article