[Case Information] This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “business necessity (conflict-based transfer of an indefinite-term employee).” Decision body: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae1950 ○ ○ ○ Unfair Dismissal Relief Application 2026-07-27 · Case outcome: Dismissed Key issue summary: a. 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview This case concerns an indefinite-term employee working at a Health Promotion Center who, after severe and prolonged conflict with other employees, was transferred to another workplace. The employee claimed that this transfer was in substance an unfair dismissal and applied to the Labor Relations Commission for relief. The Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission examined whether the transfer was a legitimate exercise of the employer’s managerial prerogative or whether it constituted an unfair dismissal. Ⅱ. Summary of Issues The issue in this case is: “In a situation of serious interpersonal conflict within the Health Promotion Center, does the measure of transferring only a specific indefinite-term employee to another center constitute a legitimate transfer, when considering business necessity, the degree of disadvantage to the employee’s personal life, and the procedures followed in a comprehensive manner, or does it in substance amount to an unfair dismissal?” Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning The decision panel in this case noted that severe conflict had accumulated between the indefinite-term employee and the other employees at the Health Promotion Center, causing significant disruption to workplace order and the performance of duties; that even if only the employee Baek ○○ were reassigned to the Seoul Health Promotion Center, it would still be difficult to expect proper performance of work at the Suwon Health Promotion Center; and that transferring all of the other employees who were in conflict with the employee to Seoul would be markedly unreasonable from the perspective of personnel management and organizational operation. In light of these circumstances, the panel found that there was an objectively recognizable “business necessity” to transfer the employee to another center in order to resolve the conflict and restore work efficiency. The panel further relied on Supreme Court precedent, which requires a comprehensive assessment of (i) the necessity of changing personnel allocation, (ii) the reasonableness of selecting the particular employee as the subject of transfer, and (iii) whether the transfer enhances managerial efficiency of the enterprise, when determining the legitimacy of a transfer or reassignment. It also noted that, unless the disadvantage to the employee’s personal life caused by the transfer clearly exceeds the level that employees are ordinarily expected to endure, it is difficult to regard the measure as an abuse of managerial prerogative. On this basis, the panel held that it was difficult to conclude that the transfer in this case imposed an excessive disadvantage on the employee’s personal life. Even if there were some procedural shortcomings, such as insufficient consultation during the transfer process, those circumstances alone were insufficient to find an abuse of managerial prerogative or an unfair dismissal. Accordingly, the employee’s application for relief from unfair dismissal was dismissed. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) From the employee’s perspective, even if a transfer or reassignment is not directly connected to a dismissal, it is important to understand that the standard for assessing its legitimacy lies in balancing “business necessity” against the “disadvantage to the employee’s personal life.” In particular, where workplace conflict has intensified over a long period to the point that it is difficult to perform work itself, employees should bear in mind that, if the employer chooses transfer as a means of resolving the conflict, the Labor Relations Commission is likely to recognize such transfer as a measure within the scope of managerial prerogative. Therefore, rather than merely escalating emotional confrontation in a conflict situation, it is important to document the objective course of the conflict and efforts at improvement through emails, minutes of meetings, counseling records, and the like. If a transfer would cause disadvantages to personal life that are realistically difficult to bear (such as long-distance commuting or difficulty in caring for family members), the employee should inform the company in writing of those specific circumstances in advance and request adjustment. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective) From the employer’s side, to prevent transfers or reassignments from being challenged as unfair dismissals, first, the employer should keep records of how the conflict arose, the extent to which it impeded organizational operation, and prior efforts to resolve the conflict (interviews, mediation, training, etc.). Second, the employer should organize personnel data so that it can explain why the particular employee was selected for transfer among multiple employees, based on reasonable selection criteria (continuity of work, staffing composition, manpower needs of other centers, etc.). In addition, presenting reasonable supplementary measures to mitigate the disadvantages to the employee’s personal life caused by the transfer—such as transportation subsidies, adjustment of working hours, or support for adaptation over a certain period—will, in practical terms, increase the likelihood that the Labor Relations Commission will recognize the legitimacy of the transfer. In disputes over this type of transfer, the key factor that determines whether there has been an unfair dismissal is not merely asserting that the measure was an ordinary exercise of managerial prerogative, but whether both “business necessity” and “efforts to mitigate disadvantages to the employee’s personal life” can be proven through specific facts in line with the Supreme Court’s legal principles described above. Both employees and employers should keep this in mind. 2. Matters Decided a. Case Overview and Procedural History a. Existence of Business Necessity Given that there was severe conflict between the indefinite-term employee and all of the other employees at the Health Promotion Center; that, if only Baek ○○ were reassigned to the Seoul Health Promotion Center, it would still be difficult to expect proper performance of work at the Suwon Health Promotion Center; and that it would be highly inappropriate to reassign all of the other employees who were in conflict with the employee to Seoul, the panel determined that there was an unavoidable business necessity to transfer the employee in question in order to resolve the conflict and secure work efficiency. b. Degree of Disadvantage to Personal Life After the transfer, the employee, through renewal of contract… 3. Summary of the Decision a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning a. Existence of Business Necessity Given that there was severe conflict between the indefinite-term employee and all of the other employees at the Health Promotion Center; that, if only Baek ○○ were reassigned to the Seoul Health Promotion Center, it would still be difficult to expect proper performance of work at the Suwon Health Promotion Center; and that it would be highly inappropriate to reassign all of the other employees who were in conflict with the employee to Seoul, the panel determined that there was an unavoidable business necessity to transfer the employee in question in order to resolve the conflict and secure work efficiency. b. Degree of Disadvantage to Personal Life After the transfer, the employee, through renewal of contract… / [See More Related Decisions] - ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision on “Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)”’ - ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision on “Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark Made by Telephone)”’ - ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision on “Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)”’ – Date of decision: – Case outcome: Initial decision upheld [Tags] Unfair dismissal, business necessity (conflict-based transfer of an indefinite-term employee), personnel movement·transfer, workplace conflict, 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, “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Dismissal of Application (Failure to Comply with Request for Amendment, Text Message Sent)’,” in a new window. ※ A list of decisions related to business necessity (conflict-based transfer of an indefinite-term employee) can be found in the “List of Decisions Related to Business Necessity (Conflict-Based Transfer of an Indefinite-Term Employee).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article