[Case Information] This case is a decision in which the employer ultimately prevailed (application dismissed) on the issues of “disciplinary severity and transfer (personal hardship).” Decision Committee: Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae693 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal 2026-09-09 · Case result: Dismissed Summary of key issues: A case in which the Commission held that (i) there were grounds for suspension from duty, (ii) the level of discipline was not excessively severe nor procedurally unlawful, and thus the disciplinary action was justified, and (iii) the transfer was based on business necessity and did not cause personal hardship that clearly exceeded the scope ordinarily to be borne by employees, and was therefore also justified. / 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview In this case, an employee received a disciplinary suspension from the company and was subsequently issued a transfer order. The employee claimed that these measures constituted unfair personnel actions equivalent to unfair dismissal and filed an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission. The Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission examined whether both the disciplinary action and the transfer were justified, and ruled in favor of the employer, dismissing the employee’s application for remedy. This decision is a useful example of how, in unfair dismissal disputes where both discipline (suspension) and transfer are at issue, the Labor Relations Commission assesses the severity of discipline and the personal hardship arising from a transfer. Ⅱ. Summary of Issues The issues in this case were whether, “in circumstances where grounds for suspension exist, the level of discipline has lost its validity to a markedly unreasonable extent in light of social norms, and whether the transfer order issued after the disciplinary action lacked business necessity or caused personal hardship that markedly exceeded the scope ordinarily to be borne by employees to the extent that it could be regarded as equivalent to unfair dismissal.” Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings The panel in this case found that there were grounds for the disciplinary suspension itself; that it was difficult to view the level of discipline as excessively severe to the point of losing its validity in light of social norms; that no serious procedural defects, such as a violation of the employee’s right to defend themselves during the disciplinary process, were identified; that, with respect to the transfer, business necessity was recognized; and that it was difficult to view the changes in wages and working conditions and other personal hardship caused by the transfer as markedly exceeding the scope ordinarily to be borne by employees. Accordingly, the Commission held that both the disciplinary action and the transfer in this case were justified, and that the employer could not be held liable for unfair dismissal. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) From the employee’s perspective, even if a disciplinary action feels unfair, it is difficult to have it overturned by the Labor Relations Commission based solely on the assertion that the discipline is excessive. It is necessary to prepare a concrete comparison of the seriousness of the grounds for discipline, the company’s disciplinary standards, and consistency with similar past cases. With respect to transfers, it is also difficult to have a transfer recognized as unfair solely on the basis of increased commuting distance or dissatisfaction with the new duties. It is important to prepare objective evidence showing that there was no business necessity for the transfer or that the personal hardship caused by the transfer was “markedly excessive.” If you are considering filing an application for remedy for unfair dismissal in a similar situation, you should systematically整理 the facts relating to the grounds for discipline, any procedural defects in the disciplinary process, and the details of changes in wages and working conditions after the transfer, and consult with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law& from the initial stage. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective) From the employer’s side, when imposing disciplinary measures such as suspension or pay reduction, it is essential to clearly apply the grounds and levels of discipline prescribed in the rules of employment and HR regulations, and to meticulously ensure procedural fairness, including convening a disciplinary committee and providing an opportunity for explanation. In addition, when a transfer is implemented in parallel with discipline, the employer should secure materials that can explain the business necessity of the transfer and the rationality of personnel management, and review in advance any changes in wages, benefits, working hours, and commuting conditions resulting from the transfer so as to prevent excessive personal hardship that would exceed the “scope ordinarily to be borne.” Furthermore, in cases where discipline and transfer are implemented simultaneously, they may be evaluated as a single disciplinary measure under case law. Employers should therefore adjust the overall level of sanctions so that it does not appear markedly excessive in light of social norms, which will help prevent disputes. In matters with potential for disputes before the Labor Relations Commission, it is advisable to obtain advice at an early stage from professional labor consultants, such as Labor Law Firm Law&, and to establish a strategy for discipline and personnel transfers. 2. Matters Decided A. Case Overview and Procedural History A case in which the Commission held that there were grounds for suspension from duty, that the level of discipline was not excessively severe nor procedurally unlawful, and thus the disciplinary action was justified, and that the transfer was based on business necessity and did not cause personal hardship that clearly exceeded the scope ordinarily to be borne by employees, and was therefore justified. 3. Gist of the Decision A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings A case in which the Commission held that there were grounds for suspension from duty, that the level of discipline was not excessively severe nor procedurally unlawful, and thus the disciplinary action was justified, and that the transfer was based on business necessity and did not cause personal hardship that clearly exceeded the scope ordinarily to be borne by employees, and was therefore justified. / [See More Related Decisions] - “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Expectation of Renewal (Daily Worker with Express Fixed-Term)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Non-Formation of Employment Offer (Absence of Offer Letter)’” – Decision date: – Case number: First-instance decision upheld [Tags] Unfair dismissal, disciplinary severity·transfer (personal hardship), disciplinary dismissal, violation of company policy·failure to comply with work orders, 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 one of the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&. ※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Expectation of Renewal (Daily Worker with Express Fixed-Term)’,” in a new window. ※ You can also view the list of decisions related to disciplinary severity·transfer (personal hardship) at “List of Decisions on Disciplinary Severity·Transfer (Personal Hardship).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article