[Case Information] This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of a transfer order (change of workplace for an academy instructor). Decision date: 2026-07-30 · Decision body: Jeju Regional Labor Relations Commission · Case No.: 2026부해121 Key issue summary: A. Whether the employee’s consent is required to change the place of work If the employment contract does not specify a particular place of work and provides that the employer may change the place of work as necessary, the place of work cannot be regarded as fixed. Even if, at the time the employment contract was prepared, the manager answered that there would be “no change in the place of work,” this is merely an explanation that the status quo would be maintained as of the time of contract formation, and cannot be viewed as a firm commitment that the place of work would not be changed in the future even if business needs arise. 1. Legal Implications This post reviews, from the perspective of Labor Law Firm Law&, a decision by the Jeju Regional Labor Relations Commission on unfair dismissal and personnel orders in a case where the issue was whether a personnel order issued after a workplace bullying report constituted an unfair retaliatory measure. Like personnel transfers and redundancies, personnel orders are also determined by how the three pillars of “business necessity, degree of personal hardship, and consultation procedures” are substantiated. Ⅰ. Case Overview The employee in this case worked as an instructor at an educational institution, teaching several tracks of courses. After reporting workplace bullying, the employee received a personnel order reorganizing their department and duties. The employee filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission for relief from an unfair personnel order (unfair dismissal), claiming that the transfer was retaliatory for the workplace bullying report. The employer argued that, in the course of reorganizing the integrated organization by curriculum, it merely adjusted the employee’s place of work and duties in light of the employee’s main teaching field and organizational efficiency, and that this was not a disciplinary or disadvantageous measure. Ⅱ. Issues The issue in this case is whether a transfer and change of workplace made immediately after the employee reported workplace bullying (i) constitutes a change of workplace without consent in breach of the employment contract, (ii) lacks business necessity, (iii) imposes excessive personal hardship, and (iv) amounts to a disadvantageous treatment in retaliation for the workplace bullying report, thereby rising to the level of an unfair personnel order (unfair dismissal). Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning The panel held that the employer’s personnel order fell within the scope of a legitimate exercise of managerial prerogative. Given that the employment contract did not specify a particular place of work and allowed the employer to change it as necessary; that the manager’s explanation at the time of contract formation that “there will be no change in the place of work” was merely a description of the then-current situation; that reorganizing the integrated organization by curriculum was a business judgment that could not readily be deemed unreasonable; that the employee’s main teaching field had been consistently maintained for several years and the same criteria had been applied to other instructors; and that the measure had the effect of spatially separating the employee from the workplace bullying perpetrator and thus had an aspect of protective action, the Commission found that separate consent to the change of workplace was not required, that there was business necessity for the personnel order, that the resulting personal hardship was limited to relocation within the same living area and the burden of night commuting and therefore did not clearly exceed the level that employees are ordinarily expected to bear, and that, since the employer explained the direction of the organizational restructuring and the need for the transfer and heard the employee’s concerns, the consultation procedure required under the principle of good faith was largely satisfied. Furthermore, the mere fact that the personnel order was issued close in time to the workplace bullying report was insufficient to conclude that it was retaliatory disadvantageous treatment. The grounds for the personnel order did not appear to have been newly created after the report; rather, considering that the employee was separated from the managerial scope of the alleged perpetrator, it was difficult to view the measure as disadvantageous to the employee. On this basis, the Commission held that the personnel order could not be deemed unfair. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) From the employee’s standpoint, it is important to carefully check how the place of work is described in the employment contract and whether there is a clause allowing for “change of workplace.” It should also be borne in mind that a personnel transfer following a workplace bullying report is not automatically recognized as disadvantageous treatment; multiple factors are considered together, including business necessity, consistency of placement criteria, the degree of personal hardship, and whether there was a consultation process. In particular, even if past work assignments felt unfair, it is very difficult at a later personnel order stage to prove retaliation or discrimination without sufficient objective evidence (timetables, emails, allocation criteria, information on comparators, etc.). Where a personnel measure is taken after a workplace bullying report, it is crucial to specifically record and substantiate the timing, reasons, and explanations given for the measure, as well as the concrete personal hardship suffered. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective) From the employer’s perspective, on the premise that personnel orders such as transfers, reassignments, and placement on standby are controlled by the dismissal restrictions under Article 23 of the Labor Standards Act and the doctrine of abuse of rights, it is advisable to document the “business necessity” and “reasonableness of personnel selection” that support the legitimacy of the personnel order. If the need for organizational restructuring, the placement criteria, and the fact that the same criteria were applied to other employees are organized in minutes or internal reports, these will serve as important defensive materials at the Labor Relations Commission stage. It is also desirable to consider support measures to minimize personal hardship arising from changes in workplace or duties (such as commuting support or adjustment of working hours), and to conduct a substantive consultation process by explaining the purpose and necessity of the personnel order to the employee and hearing their views before and after the order. Personnel measures concerning workplace bullying complainants can easily be misunderstood as disadvantageous treatment rather than protective measures. Therefore, the purpose and background of the measure and the process of considering alternatives should be clearly documented so that, in the event of a future dispute, the employer can respond reasonably together with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&. To prevail in this type of personnel order case, it is always important in practice to structure the facts in line with the three elements set out in Supreme Court precedents—“business necessity, personal hardship, and consultation procedures”—and to carefully examine whether there is a causal relationship between the workplace bullying report and the personnel measure. 2. Matters Decided A. Case Overview and Procedural History This is a case in which the Commission held that, where business necessity for a personnel order is recognized, a consultation procedure has been followed, and the resulting personal hardship is not significant, the mere fact that the personnel order was issued after a workplace bullying report is insufficient to deem the order unfair. 3. Summary of Decision A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning A. Whether the employee’s consent is required to change the place of work Where an employment contract does not specify a particular place of work and provides that the employer may change it as necessary, the place of work cannot be regarded as fixed. Even if, at the time the employment contract was prepared, the employee received an answer from the manager that there would be no change in the place of work, this is only an explanation that the status quo would be maintained as of the time of contract formation, and cannot be viewed as a firm commitment that the place of work would not be changed in the future even if business needs arise. B. Whether business necessity is recognized Reorganizing an integrated organization by curriculum is a business judgment that can hardly be regarded as unreasonable. Given that the employee’s main teaching field had consistently been maintained for several years and that the same placement criteria were applied to other employees, the reasonableness of personnel selection is also recognized. The employee argued that the department placement was unfair because the alleged workplace bullying perpetrator had intentionally restricted work assignments only for the employee, resulting in a skewed teaching field. However, there was no evidence sufficient to conclusively support this claim, and even if there were some problems in the past work assignment process, it was difficult to find the placement itself unfair on that basis. C. Whether the personal hardship is significant The employee’s duties were not institutionally restricted, and the pre- and post-transfer workplaces were located within the same living area, so it was difficult to find that the employee suffered hardship to the extent of having to change residence. While the difficulty of night commuting was acknowledged, considering that an instructor in charge of multiple tracks of courses will inevitably face inter-campus commuting burdens regardless of which campus is the main workplace, it was difficult to recognize that the disadvantage arising from the personnel order clearly exceeded the level that employees are ordinarily expected to bear. D. Whether the consultation procedure required under the principle of good faith was followed In light of the fact that the employer explained the direction of the organizational restructuring and the need for the transfer of workplace and heard the employee’s concerns, the consultation procedure required under the principle of good faith appears to have been followed. Even if there were some shortcomings in this respect, such circumstances alone do not render the personnel order unlawful. E. Whether the measure constitutes disadvantageous treatment in response to the workplace bullying report Although it was acknowledged that the personnel order was made close in time to the workplace bullying report, the grounds for the personnel order did not appear to have been newly created after the report. Rather, considering that the employee who made the report was separated from the managerial scope of the person identified as the perpetrator, it was difficult to view the measure as disadvantageous to the employee. [See More Related Decisions] - ‘Business Necessity (Reassignment of Cleaner)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision - ‘Relief Interest · Refusal to Re-employ (Post-Retirement Fixed-Term Employment)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision - ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision [Tags] Unfair dismissal, transfer order (change of workplace for academy instructor), 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 post is part of Labor Law Firm Law&’s “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series. ※ You can view the previous post, “‘Right to Terminate Probation (Evaluation · Interview Procedures)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window. ※ The list of decisions related to transfer orders (change of workplace for academy instructors) can be viewed together under “List of Decisions on Transfer Orders (Change of Workplace for Academy Instructors).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article