[Case Information] This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “justifiability of transfer (separation measures for workplace harassment).” Decision body: Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae652 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal 2026-08-24 · Case result: Dismissed Summary of key issue: The employer’s transfer order, issued as a separation measure for workplace harassment pursuant to the mandatory provisions of the Labor Standards Act, was found to be based on business necessity. The disadvantages to the employee’s daily life resulting from the transfer did not significantly exceed the level ordinarily to be borne by employees, and the employer conducted a prior interview and followed the consultation procedures required under the principle of good faith. Accordingly, the transfer order was held to be justified. --- 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview In this case, the employee, who had been subject to a transfer as a separation measure in a workplace harassment situation, filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission, claiming that the transfer order constituted an unfair personnel measure equivalent to unfair dismissal. The Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission focused its determination on the justifiability of the transfer order issued by the employer in response to workplace harassment, and on whether that transfer constituted a form of disciplinary action. Ⅱ. Issues in Dispute The issue in this case is whether a transfer order based on separation measures for workplace harassment, which are mandatory under the Labor Standards Act, constitutes a legitimate exercise of managerial prerogative in light of the disadvantages to the employee’s daily life and the relationship with the disciplinary procedures set forth in the work rules, or whether it amounts to an abuse of rights equivalent to unfair dismissal. Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning The decision panel found that the employer issued the transfer order to separate the perpetrator and victim following the occurrence of workplace harassment; that it was difficult to view the disadvantages to the employee’s daily life resulting from the transfer as significantly exceeding the level ordinarily to be borne by employees; and that the employer followed the consultation procedures required under the principle of good faith, such as conducting a prior interview with the employee. On this basis, the panel held that there was no dismissal in this case, and that the transfer order at issue should be regarded as a personnel order whose business necessity and procedural legitimacy were established. In addition, even if the company’s work rules list transfer as one type of disciplinary measure, the transfer in this case was a measure taken out of substantive necessity to separate the parties in a workplace harassment situation. Therefore, the mere fact that no separate disciplinary procedure was followed does not render the transfer automatically null and void. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) From the employee’s standpoint, in order to contest whether a transfer constitutes an unfair personnel measure, the focus should be on whether the disadvantage rises to the level of causing serious harm to the employee’s overall life, beyond mere inconvenience or an increase in commuting distance, and whether the stated reason for the transfer—such as separation in a harassment case—goes beyond an objective necessity and in substance takes on the character of punishment or retaliation. It is also important to secure in advance evidence regarding procedural aspects, such as whether the company provided explanations or held interviews before and after the transfer, and whether the criteria for selecting the employee subject to transfer were reasonable. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective) From the employer’s perspective, when workplace harassment becomes an issue, transfer may be used as a “separation measure” pursuant to the mandatory provisions of the Labor Standards Act. However, it is advisable to document the necessity and criteria for the transfer so that they can be explained objectively. Records should be kept of efforts to minimize disadvantages to the employee’s daily life resulting from the transfer, as well as of prior interviews, hearing of opinions, and other consultation procedures required under the principle of good faith. Doing so will make it easier to defend against future disputes over unfair dismissal or unfair transfer. As in this case, when the Labor Relations Commission assesses the justifiability of a transfer, it comprehensively weighs business necessity, the degree of disadvantage to the employee’s daily life, and whether consultation procedures were implemented. Both employees and employers should accurately understand this framework of analysis and formulate their response strategies accordingly. 2. Matters Determined a. Case Overview and Procedural History The employer’s transfer order, issued as a separation measure for workplace harassment pursuant to the mandatory provisions of the Labor Standards Act, was found to be based on business necessity. The disadvantages to the employee’s daily life resulting from the transfer did not significantly exceed the level ordinarily to be borne by employees, and the employer conducted a prior interview and followed the consultation procedures required under the principle of good faith. Accordingly, the transfer order was justified. Even if Article 65(3)5 of the company’s work rules specifies transfer as a type of disciplinary measure and the employer issued the transfer order without following the disciplinary procedures, in terms of substantive requirements the transfer order was a measure taken by the employer as a separation measure for workplace harassment… 3. Summary of the Decision a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning The employer’s transfer order, issued as a separation measure for workplace harassment pursuant to the mandatory provisions of the Labor Standards Act, was found to be based on business necessity. The disadvantages to the employee’s daily life resulting from the transfer did not significantly exceed the level ordinarily to be borne by employees, and the employer conducted a prior interview and followed the consultation procedures required under the principle of good faith. Accordingly, the transfer order was justified. Even if Article 65(3)5 of the company’s work rules specifies transfer as a type of disciplinary measure and the employer issued the transfer order without following the disciplinary procedures, in terms of substantive requirements the transfer order was a measure taken by the employer as a separation measure for workplace harassment… / [See More Related Decisions] - ‘Unmet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision - ‘Dismissal of Application (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision – Decision date: – Case number: Dismissed - ‘No Formation of Employment Offer (Absence of Offer Letter)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision – Decision date: – Case number: Initial Decision Upheld [Tags] Unfair dismissal, justifiability of transfer (separation measures for workplace harassment), workplace harassment, personnel order (transfer), 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, “‘Expectation of Reemployment After Mandatory Retirement (Hall Serving Fixed-Term Employee)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window. ※ A list of decisions related to justifiability of transfer (separation measures for workplace harassment) can be found under “List of Decisions on Justifiability of Transfer (Separation Measures for Workplace Harassment).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article