[Case Information] This case is a decision in which the employee ultimately prevailed (full acceptance) on the issue of “remedy interest (resignation of operating room head nurse).” Decision date: 2026-07-30 · Decision body: Busan Regional Labor Relations Commission · Case No.: 2026Buhae566 Key issues summary: A. Whether there is a remedial interest in this application for relief: Although the employee in this case submitted a resignation letter dated 15 June 2026 and left the hospital, making reinstatement to the original position as operating room head nurse impossible, the employee still retains an interest in obtaining an order for payment regarding the reduced portion of wages, such as position allowance, from the date of the personnel transfer onward. Therefore, a remedial interest in this application exists. B. Whether the personnel transfer in this case constitutes a demotion: The work rules, etc. … 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview In this case, a personnel transfer was issued to an employee working as an operating room head nurse at a hospital, resulting in a reduction of wages including position allowance. Afterward, the employee resigned and filed an application with the Busan Regional Labor Relations Commission for relief from unfair dismissal and unfair personnel transfer. The Commission held that, although reinstatement to the original position was impossible because the employee had already left the hospital, there remained a remedial interest before the Labor Relations Commission with respect to the wage reduction that occurred after the personnel transfer, and proceeded to examine the case. Ⅱ. Issues The issues in this case are whether the personnel transfer imposed on the operating room head nurse constitutes a demotion, and whether a personnel transfer carried out without any separate disciplinary grounds, without business necessity, and without a consultation process constitutes a legitimate exercise of the employer’s right to manage personnel. Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning The panel in this case found that the concept of demotion was not separately defined in the work rules, that the employee’s job grade did not change as a result of the personnel transfer, and that no misconduct by the employee had been identified. Accordingly, it held that the personnel transfer in this case did not fall under so‑called “demotion.” On the other hand, the panel noted that there were no particular managerial changes at the time of the personnel transfer that warranted special consideration; that, given the severe shortage of nursing staff in the operating room, it was difficult to view the personnel transfer as reasonable from the standpoint of the hospital’s efficient operation or the life and safety of patients; and that there was no evidence that the employer had explained the necessity of the transfer or engaged in good‑faith consultation with the employee regarding the change in work pattern prior to the transfer. Based on these circumstances, the panel determined that there was no business necessity for the personnel transfer and that the lack of a good‑faith consultation process rendered it an abuse of rights. Ultimately, even though the personnel transfer itself did not constitute a demotion, the dismissal in this case was found to be unfair because it was based on an unjust personnel order lacking business necessity and an appropriate consultation process. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) Even after an employee has resigned, if a personnel transfer has resulted in a reduction of wages such as position allowance, the employee may still have a practical interest in seeking relief before the Labor Relations Commission for the reduced portion. In addition, even if the employer does not invoke disciplinary grounds, a personnel transfer may be challenged as an unfair transfer or unfair personnel action if it lacks business necessity and imposes excessive disadvantages on the employee in terms of livelihood and professional expertise. Employees should therefore carefully organize and retain materials regarding staffing conditions before and after the transfer, changes in job duties, and details of any wage reductions. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective) According to decisions of the Labor Relations Commission and court precedents, the legitimacy of personnel orders such as transfers and placement on standby is assessed comprehensively, taking into account business necessity, the balance between such necessity and the disadvantages to the employee’s livelihood, and whether procedures required under the principle of good faith—such as good‑faith consultation with the employee during the personnel decision‑making process—have been followed. In particular, in medical institutions where operations are directly linked to patients’ lives and safety, when transferring key personnel such as operating room head nurses, employers must be able to objectively substantiate the actual staffing situation, managerial needs, and impact on patient safety. Employers must also ensure that they fully explain to the employee the necessity and reasons for the personnel transfer and follow procedures to consult on possible alternatives. In labor‑management practice, it should always be borne in mind that the Labor Relations Commission does not recognize legitimacy based merely on the formal existence of a right to manage personnel, but strictly examines whether there is substantive necessity and whether procedures consistent with personnel regulations, work rules, and established case law have been followed. 2. Matters Decided A. Case Overview and Procedural History This is a case in which it was held that, although the personnel transfer in question did not constitute a demotion, it was unfair because there was no business necessity for the transfer and the employer failed to engage in good‑faith consultation with the employee. 3. Summary of the Decision A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning A. Whether there is a remedial interest in this application for relief Although the employee in this case submitted a resignation letter dated 15 June 2026 and left the hospital, making reinstatement to the original position as operating room head nurse impossible, the employee still retains an interest in obtaining an order for payment regarding the reduced portion of wages, such as position allowance, from the date of the personnel transfer onward. Therefore, a remedial interest in this application exists. B. Whether the personnel transfer in this case constitutes a demotion Because “demotion” is not defined in the work rules, there was no change in job grade as a result of the personnel transfer, and no misconduct by the employee was identified, the personnel transfer in this case is deemed not to constitute so‑called “demotion.” C. Whether the personnel transfer in this case was legitimate There were no particular managerial changes to be considered in implementing the personnel transfer in this case, and given that nursing staff in the operating room were in extremely short supply as of May 2026, it is difficult to regard the personnel transfer as contributing to the rational operation of the hospital. In light of these circumstances, and the fact that the transfer was also inappropriate from the perspective of patients’ lives and safety, the panel determined that there was no business necessity for the personnel transfer. Furthermore, prior to the personnel transfer, the employer neither explained the necessity of the transfer nor discussed changes in work patterns with the employee. Accordingly, the personnel transfer in this case was found to be unfair. [See More Related Decisions] - “Decision on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Business Necessity (Reassignment of Cleaner)’” - “Decision on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Remedial Interest·Refusal to Rehire (Post‑Retirement Fixed‑Term Employment)’” - “Decision on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Excessive Disciplinary Measure (Negligent Management and Supervision)’” [Tags] Unfair dismissal, remedial interest (resignation of operating room head nurse), 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&. ※ The previous article, “Decision on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Refusal of Recommended Resignation (Use of Annual Leave)’,” can be viewed in a new window. ※ A list of decisions relating to remedial interest (resignation of operating room head nurse) can be found in the “List of Decisions Relating to Remedial Interest (Resignation of Operating Room Head Nurse).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article