[Case Information] This case is a labor commission decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “reasonableness of transfer (reduction of overseas sales).” Decision body: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission, 2026BuHae1887 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal 2026-07-31 · Case result: Dismissed Key issue summary: (a) 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview This case concerns an employee working in the overseas sales department who applied to the Labor Relations Commission for relief, claiming that the company’s transfer order and wage freeze constituted an unfair personnel measure equivalent to unfair dismissal. The Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission examined whether the measures fell within the scope of the employer’s managerial prerogative, taking into account the transfer/assignment clause in the employment contract, the employer’s business judgment to scale down overseas sales, and whether there was any substantive change in the employee’s working conditions. Ⅱ. Summary of Issues The issues in this case are: “Where there is a contractual basis in the employment contract for changes in workplace and duties, can a transfer order based on the downsizing of the overseas sales department be regarded as a legitimate transfer even if it was made without a consultation process? In addition, is a wage freeze subject to a remedy order for unfair dismissal?” Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision The panel in this case found that: despite the employer’s long-term investment in overseas sales, no meaningful sales had been realized and the employer determined that maintaining overseas sales was not helpful from a business management standpoint; there was an explicit basis in the employment contract for changes in workplace and duties, and the transfer order was issued within the scope of the employer’s discretion in personnel matters; there was no substantive change in working conditions after the transfer, so the disadvantage to the employee’s livelihood was not significant; and there had been a similar transfer situation in 2021. In light of these factors, the panel held that it was difficult to deny the legitimacy of the transfer solely on the ground that there had been no separate consultation process with the employee. Accordingly, the panel determined that either no dismissal disposition existed in this case, or that the transfer itself was legitimate, and therefore it could not be regarded as an unfair dismissal. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) When asserting unfair dismissal, employees should be mindful that it is not sufficient merely to perceive the measure as “disadvantageous” to themselves. They must specifically prove that the transfer lacked business necessity, that the disadvantage to their livelihood was significantly severe, and that even the consultation and explanation that are required under the principle of good faith in procedural terms were not provided. In particular, where the employment contract contains clauses on changes in workplace and duties, it is necessary to focus the dispute on how much core working conditions such as actual wages, position, and benefits have deteriorated, and whether the transfer in substance functioned as a disciplinary measure or pressure to resign. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective) From the employer’s standpoint, even where a transfer or reassignment is based on business judgment, it is important to clearly provide a basis for changes in workplace and duties in the employment contract or work rules, and to minimize disadvantages to employees’ livelihoods by maintaining, as far as possible, core working conditions such as wages and position after the transfer. In addition, although a relatively broad discretion in personnel matters is recognized for transfers, unlike collective redundancies, it is advisable to explain the background and business necessity of the transfer through written notices or interviews where possible, and to maintain consistency with standards applied in similar past cases, in order to reduce disputes over abuse of managerial prerogative before the Labor Relations Commission. To prevail in this type of case, it is necessary to systematically organize the business necessity of the transfer, the degree of disadvantage to the employee’s livelihood, the contractual and work-rule bases, and the actual operation of similar past personnel measures, and to structure and prove the facts in a manner consistent with the established legal principles on the legitimacy of transfers and reassignments applied by the Labor Relations Commission. 2. Matters Decided (a) Case Overview and Procedural History (a) Legitimacy of the Transfer Given that the employment contract contains a basis for changes in workplace and duties, and that the employer, despite long-term investment in overseas sales, determined that maintaining overseas sales was not helpful from a business management standpoint due to the absence of meaningful sales, business necessity is recognized. As there was no substantive change in working conditions, the disadvantage to the employee’s livelihood was not significant, and the measure was taken pursuant to the employer’s discretion in personnel matters under the employment contract. Considering also that there was a similar situation in 2021, the mere absence of a consultation process does not suffice to deny the legitimacy of the transfer; therefore, the transfer is legitimate. (b) Whether the Wage Freeze Is Subject to a Remedy Order The wage freeze is… 3. Summary of the Decision (a) Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning (a) Legitimacy of the Transfer Given that the employment contract contains a basis for changes in workplace and duties, and that the employer, despite long-term investment in overseas sales, determined that maintaining overseas sales was not helpful from a business management standpoint due to the absence of meaningful sales, business necessity is recognized. As there was no substantive change in working conditions, the disadvantage to the employee’s livelihood was not significant, and the measure was taken pursuant to the employer’s discretion in personnel matters under the employment contract. Considering also that there was a similar situation in 2021, the mere absence of a consultation process does not suffice to deny the legitimacy of the transfer; therefore, the transfer is legitimate. (b) Whether the Wage Freeze Is Subject to a Remedy Order The wage freeze is… / [See More Related Decisions] - “‘Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Date of decision: – Case result: Initial decision upheld - “‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” - “‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” [Tags] Unfair dismissal, reasonableness of transfer (reduction of overseas sales), personnel appointment/transfer, wages/wage arrears, 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, “‘Existence of Dismissal (Text Message and Encouragement to Return to Work)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window. ※ A list of decisions related to reasonableness of transfer (reduction of overseas sales) can be viewed together at “List of Decisions on Reasonableness of Transfer (Reduction of Overseas Sales).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article