1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview In this case, an employee working at a hospital was reassigned, by way of a personnel order, from his existing position to the position of cleaner. The employee claimed that this was a retaliatory personnel transfer and challenged it before the Labor Relations Commission as an unfair personnel order equivalent to unfair dismissal, seeking relief. The Central Labor Relations Commission examined the legitimacy of the employer’s exercise of its managerial prerogative over personnel matters, focusing on (i) the business necessity of the personnel order, (ii) the degree of disadvantage to the employee’s livelihood, and (iii) whether the employer complied with the consultation procedures in the course of issuing the personnel order. Ⅱ. Issues in Dispute The issue in this case is: “Whether the hospital’s personnel order reassigning the employee to a cleaner position on the grounds of decreased work performance and problems with harmony within the organization constitutes an abuse of rights amounting to unfair dismissal.” Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision The panel in this case found that the employer had implemented the personnel order in accordance with the hospital’s rules of employment and the employment contract; that there were objective grounds for personnel redistribution, such as the need to maintain harmony among staff and the employee’s decreased work performance; and that there was a lack of specific evidence showing that the personnel order was imposed for disciplinary or retaliatory purposes. Accordingly, the panel held that it was difficult to regard the personnel order as retaliatory, as claimed by the employee, and that the business necessity of the personnel order was established. The panel further found that the cleaner position could not be considered to have a significantly worse work environment or work intensity compared to the previous facility manager position; that the change in duties did not cause any substantial disadvantage to the core terms of the employment contract, such as wages and job security; and that there was no evidence of excessive physical burden or increased risk. On this basis, the panel held that the disadvantage to the employee’s livelihood resulting from the personnel order did not significantly exceed the level that employees are ordinarily expected to bear. In addition, the panel noted that, before and after the personnel order, the employer explained the circumstances necessitating the personnel change, adjusted working hours to reflect the employee’s requests, and provided written documentation of the detailed job duties. These facts showed that the employer made considerable efforts to consult with and persuade the employee. Therefore, the mere fact that the employee refused to sign the personnel order could not, by itself, support the conclusion that no consultation procedure took place. The panel thus found no material defect in the consultation procedure required under the principle of good faith. Ultimately, the panel held that there was no dismissal in this case and that the personnel order at issue fell within the scope of a legitimate exercise of the employer’s managerial prerogative over personnel matters. The employee’s claim of unfair dismissal was therefore rejected. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) An employee who is dissatisfied with a transfer, reassignment, or change in duties should not immediately claim unfair dismissal or retaliatory personnel action. Before doing so, it is necessary to carefully examine: (i) how the rules of employment and the employment contract regulate personnel transfers; and (ii) the actual extent of any disadvantage to livelihood in terms of wages, job security, and working conditions. It is also important to prepare in advance for any future Labor Relations Commission proceedings by checking what measures the company took during the personnel process—such as explanations, consultations, or adjustments to working conditions—and by considering how the employee’s own requests for consultation or objections can be recorded and proven. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective) From the employer’s standpoint, even if a personnel order does not amount to a redundancy dismissal, it is necessary to always keep in mind, in light of Supreme Court precedents and Labor Relations Commission standards, the three-step legal framework of “business necessity – disadvantage to livelihood – consultation procedure required under the principle of good faith,” and to prepare accordingly. In particular, where a personnel order is based on factors such as decreased work performance, internal organizational conflict, or the need for personnel redistribution, as in this case, it is crucial to retain objective records of performance evaluations, work attitude, and organizational needs. It is also important to document, in writing, the explanations and consultations conducted before and after the personnel order, as well as any adjustments to working conditions. These records can become decisive defensive evidence in future disputes before the Labor Relations Commission or the courts. (ⓒ2025 copyright. Labor Attorney Youngseop Moon, Labor Law Firm Law&. Unauthorized reproduction and redistribution are prohibited.) 2. Matters Decided A. Case Overview and Procedural History This is a case in which the personnel order was held to be lawful on the grounds that the business necessity sought to be achieved through the personnel order outweighed the disadvantage to the employee’s livelihood, and that there were no procedural defects in implementing the personnel order. 3. Summary of the Decision A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning a. Business Necessity The personnel order was appropriately implemented in accordance with the hospital’s rules of employment and the employment contract, and there was insufficient basis to regard it as a retaliatory personnel order as claimed by the employee. In addition, there were circumstances requiring consideration of harmony among staff, and the employee’s work performance had declined. Accordingly, business necessity for the personnel order was recognized. b. Disadvantage to Livelihood There was no basis to find that the work environment or work intensity of the cleaner position was significantly higher than that of the facility manager position. The change in duties did not result in excessive physical burden or increased risk, and the personnel order did not cause any instability in the employment relationship. In light of these factors, it was difficult to conclude that the disadvantage to the employee’s livelihood resulting from the personnel order significantly exceeded the level that employees are ordinarily expected to bear. c. Compliance with Consultation Procedures Required Under the Principle of Good Faith Before issuing the personnel order, the employer explained to the employee the circumstances that made the personnel order unavoidable. After the personnel order, the employer adjusted the working hours to reflect the employee’s requests and provided written documentation specifying the detailed job duties. These circumstances show that the employer made efforts to persuade the employee and to engage in sincere consultation. Therefore, it is difficult to conclude, solely on the basis that the employee refused to sign the personnel order, that no consultation procedure was followed. There is also no sufficient basis to regard the personnel order as invalid. [Further Related Decisions] - “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Existence of Interest in Relief (Continuation of Employment Relationship)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’” [Tags] Unfair dismissal, business necessity (reassignment to cleaner), personnel order·transfer, performance evaluation·poor performance, 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 Labor Law Firm Law&’s “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series. ※ The previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Requirements for Application (Extinction of Interest in Relief)’,” can be viewed in a new window. ※ The list of decisions related to business necessity (reassignment to cleaner) can be viewed under “List of Decisions Related to Business Necessity (Reassignment to Cleaner).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article