[Case Information] This case concerns a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “justifiability of transfer (separation measures for workplace bullying).” Date of decision: 2026-08-24 · Labor Relations Commission: Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission · Case No.: 2026부해652 Summary of key issue: The employer’s transfer order, issued as a separation measure for workplace bullying pursuant to the mandatory provisions of the Labor Standards Act, was found to be justified because (i) there was a recognized business necessity, (ii) the disadvantages to the employee’s personal life resulting from the transfer did not significantly exceed the level ordinarily to be borne by employees, and (iii) the employer followed the consultation procedures required under the principle of good faith, such as conducting a prior interview with the employee. 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview In this case, after the employee claimed to be a victim of workplace bullying, the company issued a transfer order as part of the separation measures for workplace bullying required under the Labor Standards Act. The employee argued that this transfer constituted an unfair transfer equivalent to unfair dismissal and applied to the Labor Relations Commission for relief. The Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission conducted hearings focusing on the justifiability of the transfer order and ultimately ruled in favor of the employer. The employee argued that the transfer in substance amounted to a disciplinary measure and was invalid due to disadvantages in daily life and procedural defects. Ⅱ. Summary of Issues The issue in this case is whether a transfer order issued as a separation measure for workplace bullying is, in light of business necessity, disadvantages to the employee’s personal life, and consultation procedures required under the principle of good faith, a justified transfer, or whether it constitutes an unfair transfer as a form of disciplinary action (an adverse personnel measure similar to unfair dismissal). In particular, the question arose whether a transfer carried out without separate disciplinary procedures is invalid on the ground of procedural defects where the rules of employment list “transfer” as a type of disciplinary sanction. Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning The panel in this case noted that the employer issued the transfer order to implement separation measures for workplace bullying, which are mandatory under the Labor Standards Act; that it was difficult to find that the disadvantages to the employee’s personal life resulting from the transfer significantly exceeded the level ordinarily to be borne by employees; and that the employer had carried out consultation procedures required under the principle of good faith, such as conducting an interview prior to the transfer. Accordingly, the Commission found that there was an objective business necessity for the employer’s transfer order and that, when balancing this against the disadvantages to the employee’s personal life, it was difficult to conclude that such disadvantages rose to the level of an abuse of rights. Furthermore, even if the company’s rules of employment explicitly list transfer as a type of disciplinary sanction, the transfer in this case was merely a personnel measure taken to fulfill the legal obligation of separating parties in a workplace bullying situation, and it was difficult to regard it as a disciplinary disposition intended to sanction the employee. Therefore, the Commission held that a procedural defect could not be recognized solely on the ground that disciplinary procedures were not followed. In conclusion, there was no dismissal disposition in this case, and the transfer order at issue was found to be a legitimate exercise of managerial prerogative and therefore not unfair. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) From the employee’s standpoint, in order to argue that a transfer constitutes an unfair transfer or de facto unfair dismissal, it is necessary to prepare specific evidence showing that the disadvantages go beyond mere inconvenience and rise to the level of serious detriment to wages, working conditions, promotion, career, etc., and that the transfer is in substance a disciplinary sanction. In addition, in cases of transfers related to workplace bullying, the key issue is whether the employer took separation measures pursuant to a legal obligation, or whether the transfer was a retaliatory personnel measure against the bullying complainant. It is therefore important to systematically organize circumstantial evidence such as statements, emails, and personnel practices before and after the transfer. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective) From the employer’s perspective, when workplace bullying occurs and transfer is used as a separation measure, it is necessary to keep records that objectively demonstrate that the purpose of the transfer is “compliance with legal obligations and restoration of workplace order and harmony.” In addition, in order to increase the likelihood that the Labor Relations Commission will recognize the justifiability of the transfer, the employer should substantively carry out consultation procedures required under the principle of good faith, such as conducting an interview before the transfer, explaining the necessity of the transfer, and making efforts to minimize disadvantages to the employee’s personal life, including commuting distance and family circumstances. In particular, for companies whose rules of employment define transfer as a type of disciplinary measure, it is advisable to clearly distinguish between “disciplinary transfers” and “ordinary transfers based on business necessity” by separately organizing the purposes, procedures, and document formats for each, so that non-disciplinary transfers can be clearly identified as such. This decision of the Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission can be regarded as a case that reaffirms, not only in unfair dismissal disputes but also in personnel and labor-management practice involving transfers and job reassignments, the three-step review standard that Labor Law Firm Law& has consistently emphasized: “business necessity – disadvantages to personal life – sincere consultation procedures.” 2. Matters Decided A. Case Overview and Procedural History This is a case in which the transfer order was found to be justified on the grounds that there was business necessity, that the disadvantages to the employee’s personal life did not significantly exceed the scope ordinarily to be borne, and that the employer conducted sincere consultation procedures required under the principle of good faith. Accordingly, the employer’s transfer order was held to be lawful. 3. Summary of Reasoning A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning The employer’s transfer order, issued as a separation measure for workplace bullying pursuant to the mandatory provisions of the Labor Standards Act, was found to be justified because there was business necessity, the disadvantages to the employee’s personal life resulting from the transfer did not significantly exceed the level ordinarily to be borne by employees, and the employer followed the consultation procedures required under the principle of good faith, such as conducting a prior interview with the employee. Even if Article 65(3)5 of the company’s rules of employment lists transfer as a type of disciplinary sanction and the employer issued the transfer order without following disciplinary procedures, the substantive requirements are satisfied because the transfer order was merely a personnel order issued to fulfill the employer’s legal obligation under the mandatory provisions on separation measures for workplace bullying, and it is difficult to regard it as a disciplinary disposition with a punitive meaning. Therefore, there is no procedural defect. [See More Related Decisions] - “Business Necessity (Reassignment of Cleaner)” – Unfair Dismissal Decision - “Excessive Disciplinary Severity (Negligent Management/Supervision)” – Unfair Dismissal Decision - “Interest in Relief / Refusal to Rehire (Post-Retirement Fixed-Term Employment)” – Unfair Dismissal Decision [Tags] Unfair dismissal, justifiability of transfer (separation measures for workplace bullying), workplace bullying, 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 Labor Law Firm Law&’s “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series. ※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision Relating to ‘Expectation of Reemployment After Retirement (Hall-Serving Fixed-Term Employee)’,” in a new window. ※ The list of decisions relating to justifiability of transfer (separation measures for workplace bullying) can be viewed together in the “List of Decisions on Justifiability of Transfer (Separation Measures for Workplace Bullying).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article