[Case Information] This case is a precedent in which the initial decision was upheld on the issue of the “legitimacy of transfer (abolition of night-shift department).” Decision body: National Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae287 ○ ○ ○ Application for Reconsideration of Remedy for Unfair Dismissal 2026-09-15 · Case result: Initial decision upheld Key issue summary: (a) 1. Legal Implications In this unfair dismissal case, the legitimacy of an employer’s transfer order was disputed before the Labor Relations Commission, and the employer ultimately prevailed. Based on this case, Labor Law Firm Law& seeks to summarize practical points to be noted. The core issue is whether, after the abolition of a night-shift department, transferring an employee to a day-shift workplace constitutes a disadvantage equivalent to unfair dismissal, and to what extent such a measure is permissible as an exercise of managerial authority distinct from redundancy dismissal. Ⅰ. Case Overview The employee had been working on a night-shift basis in a specific dispatched department. The company abolished that dispatched department, and as a result there were no longer any vacant night-shift worksites. Accordingly, the company issued a transfer order assigning the employee to a day-shift worksite. The employee filed an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission, arguing that the transfer amounted to unfair dismissal due to the disadvantages caused in his personal life. The employee claimed that the transfer significantly altered his lifestyle pattern and made concurrent employment virtually impossible, and therefore the transfer order constituted an abuse of rights. In response, the company argued that the transfer was an unavoidable personnel reassignment following the abolition of the department, that there was no reduction in wages, and that the possibility of transfer had been clearly contemplated from the time of hiring. Ⅱ. Issues The issue in this case is whether, where the possibility of changes in work shift, work location, and duties was contemplated from the time of hiring, and where the dispatched night-shift department was abolished, the measure of transferring the employee to a day-shift worksite constitutes a legitimate exercise of managerial authority when balancing business necessity against the disadvantages to the employee’s personal life. Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision The panel in this case found that the employer had clearly notified the employee at the hiring stage that work shifts, work locations, and duties could be changed, and that the employee was aware of this; that the dispatched department in which the employee had been working was in fact abolished, leaving no night-shift worksites to which the employee could be assigned; and that, in light of these circumstances, assigning the employee to a day-shift worksite was supported by objective business necessity as part of personnel reassignment. The panel further noted that the employee’s wages did not decrease as a result of the transfer; that it was difficult to view the change in lifestyle as significantly exceeding the scope that employees are ordinarily expected to endure in connection with transfers; that the fact the employee had been engaging in concurrent employment in violation of the work rules actually undermined the legitimacy of his claims; and that, compared to the business necessity, it was difficult to regard the disadvantages to the employee’s personal life as excessive. On this basis, the panel held that the transfer in this case did not constitute unfair dismissal or a punitive personnel measure within the meaning of Article 23(1) of the Labor Standards Act, and did not amount to an abuse of rights sufficient to negate the legitimacy of the transfer. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) From the employee’s perspective, a transfer or reassignment does not automatically constitute unfair dismissal or unfair personnel action. It is necessary to understand the legal principle that business necessity and disadvantages to the employee’s personal life are comprehensively weighed and balanced. In particular, where the employee has consented at the time of hiring to the possibility of changes in work location or work shift, it is difficult to have the unfairness of a transfer recognized based solely on circumstances such as a change in lifestyle pattern or difficulty in maintaining concurrent employment. In addition, where concurrent employment is prohibited under the work rules, it should be borne in mind that asserting the unfairness of a transfer on the ground that concurrent employment has become difficult, while the employee is in violation of such prohibition, is unlikely to be accepted by the Labor Relations Commission or the courts. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective) From the employer’s perspective, in order to secure the legitimacy of transfers and reassignments, it is important to clearly stipulate in the employment contract and work rules the possibility of changes in work shift, work location, and duties, and to sufficiently explain this at the hiring stage so that employees are fully aware of it. Employers should also prepare in advance materials that can substantiate objective business necessity—such as abolition of departments and personnel reallocation—and the reasonableness of the selection of employees subject to transfer (e.g., revised organization charts, personnel operation plans). Furthermore, efforts should be made to minimize any disadvantages in wages and benefits resulting from the transfer and to adjust matters so that the disadvantages to the employee’s personal life do not exceed the range that employees are ordinarily expected to endure. Through such measures, employers will be able to persuasively argue before the Labor Relations Commission that an appropriate balance was struck between business necessity and the disadvantages to the employee’s personal life. 2. Matters Decided (a) Case Overview and Procedural History (a) Existence of Business Necessity The employee clearly recognized from the time of hiring that work shifts, work locations, and duties could be changed, and the dispatched department in which the employee had been working was abolished, leaving no vacant night-shift worksites. The employee was therefore assigned to a day-shift worksite, and business necessity was recognized. (b) Disadvantages to Personal Life The employee’s wages did not decrease as a result of the transfer, and it was difficult to view the change in lifestyle as exceeding the range that employees are ordinarily expected to endure. The employee had been engaging in concurrent employment in violation of the work rules, which could not justify the employee’s claims. In light of these factors, compared to the business necessity, the disadvantages to the employee’s personal life were not deemed to be such that the employee… 3. Summary of Decision (a) Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning (a) Existence of Business Necessity The employee clearly recognized from the time of hiring that work shifts, work locations, and duties could be changed, and the dispatched department in which the employee had been working was abolished, leaving no vacant night-shift worksites. The employee was therefore assigned to a day-shift worksite, and business necessity was recognized. (b) Disadvantages to Personal Life The employee’s wages did not decrease as a result of the transfer, and it was difficult to view the change in lifestyle as exceeding the range that employees are ordinarily expected to endure. The employee had been engaging in concurrent employment in violation of the work rules, which could not justify the employee’s claims. In light of these factors, compared to the business necessity, the disadvantages to the employee’s personal life were not deemed to be such that the employee… / [More Related Decisions] - “Unfair Dismissal Case on ‘Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’” – Decision date: – Case result: Initial decision upheld - “Unfair Dismissal Case on ‘Employee Status and Existence of Dismissal (Pet Groomer)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Case on ‘Non-Satisfaction of Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’” [Tags] Unfair dismissal, legitimacy of transfer (abolition of night-shift department), transfer/reassignment, violation of concurrent employment / non-compete prohibition, 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 one of the “Unfair Dismissal Case Law” series by Labor Law Firm Law&. ※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Case on ‘Employee Status and Existence of Dismissal (Pet Groomer)’,” in a new window. ※ The list of decisions related to the legitimacy of transfer (abolition of night-shift department) can be viewed together at “List of Decisions Related to Legitimacy of Transfer (Abolition of Night-Shift Department).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article