Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Precedent Relating to “Justifiability of Job Transfer (Reassignment to On-Site Safety Monitoring Position)” (Unfair Dismissal 82)
- Date2026/01/11 20:19
- Read 205
[Case Information]
- Case name: Unfair dismissal precedent relating to “justifiability of job transfer (reassignment to on-site safety monitoring position)”
- Date of decision:
- Case number: Dismissed
- Decision-making body: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae3912 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
20 November 2025
- Summary of outcome:
A. Existence of business necessity for the transfer
In light of the shortage of safety management personnel at the company’s construction sites and the provision in the employment contract that the employee shall work at the place designated by the employer’s personnel order and perform the duties assigned, the business necessity of assigning the employee to an on-site safety monitoring position was rec…
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This case concerns an employee of a construction company who, following a personnel order transferring and reassigning him to an on-site safety monitoring position, regarded this as amounting in substance to unfair dismissal and applied to the Labor Relations Commission for relief.
The Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission comprehensively reviewed (i) the business necessity of the transfer order, (ii) the disadvantages to the employee’s daily life, and (iii) whether consultation procedures were followed in the personnel process, and dismissed the employee’s application for remedy for unfair dismissal.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether a transfer order to an on-site safety monitoring position, issued on the ground of a shortage of safety management personnel at construction sites, constitutes an unfair personnel measure that amounts to an abuse of rights under Article 23 of the Labor Standards Act, taking into account the disadvantages to the employee’s daily life and any deficiencies in the consultation procedure.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case found that: there were objective circumstances of a shortage of safety management personnel at the company’s construction sites; the employment contract clearly stated that “the employee shall work at the place designated by the employer’s personnel order and perform the duties assigned”; there was no change in the level of remuneration after the transfer, so there was no economic disadvantage; even if the employee was to perform duties different from his previous work, such disadvantage was not so great as to outweigh the business necessity of the personnel order; the employee, being in a provisional assignment status, could have anticipated a subsequent personnel order; and the employer claimed to have attempted consultation regarding the place of transfer.
In light of these factors, the Commission held that it was difficult to regard the transfer order as violating Article 23 of the Labor Standards Act or as constituting an abuse of rights.
The dismissal in this case was therefore found not to constitute unfair dismissal, on the ground that the employee’s assertion that the transfer order was, in substance, an unfair personnel measure equivalent to dismissal could not be accepted.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
For an employee to argue that a transfer or reassignment is unjust, it is not sufficient merely to state that “this is not the work I wanted.” The employee must specifically prove circumstances such as whether the disadvantages to daily life caused by the transfer clearly exceed the level that is ordinarily tolerable, and whether the exercise of personnel authority has a retaliatory or punitive character.
Employees should also carefully check in advance how provisions relating to personnel orders are stipulated in the employment contract or work rules, and to what extent wages, place of work, and job duties may be changed.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
When implementing transfers or reassignments, employers should: first, document and quantify the objective necessity for personnel reallocation (e.g., shortage of safety management personnel); second, establish reasonable criteria for selecting the employees subject to transfer; and third, keep records of the course of consultation with employees, such as emails and interview notes.
In particular, unlike redundancy dismissals, a relatively broad discretion is recognized for transfers and reassignments. However, employers must carefully examine in advance the place of assignment, commuting distance, and wage/allowance structure so that disadvantages to the employee’s daily life do not become excessive, and, where necessary, prepare supplementary measures.
This decision illustrates that, when determining the justifiability of transfers and reassignments, the Labor Relations Commission consistently applies a three-step legal framework of “business necessity – disadvantages to daily life – consultation procedure required under the principle of good faith.” In similar cases, both employees and employers should organize the facts based on this framework.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Existence of business necessity for the transfer
In light of the shortage of safety management personnel at the company’s construction sites and the fact that, under the employment contract, the employee is required to work at the place designated by the employer’s personnel order and perform the duties assigned, the business necessity of assigning the employee to an on-site safety monitoring position is recognized.
B. Disadvantages to daily life arising from the transfer
Considering that there was no change in the employee’s remuneration due to the transfer, and that the fact the employee must perform work unrelated to his previous duties does not outweigh the business necessity of the employer’s personnel order, the disadvantages to daily life are at a level the employee must bear.
C. Compliance with consultation procedures required under the principle of good faith
The employer claims to have consulted with the employee regarding the place of transfer, and, given that the employee, being in a provisional assignment status, could have anticipated a subsequent personnel order, it is difficult to find any defect in the consultation procedure.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Existence of business necessity for the transfer
In light of the shortage of safety management personnel at the company’s construction sites and the fact that, under the employment contract, the employee is required to work at the place designated by the employer’s personnel order and perform the duties assigned, the business necessity of assigning the employee to an on-site safety monitoring position is recognized.
B. Disadvantages to daily life arising from the transfer
Considering that there was no change in the employee’s remuneration due to the transfer, and that the fact the employee must perform work unrelated to his previous duties does not outweigh the business necessity of the employer’s personnel order, the disadvantages to daily life are at a level the employee must bear.
C. Compliance with consultation procedures required under the principle of good faith
The employer claims to have consulted with the employee regarding the place of transfer, and, given that the employee, being in a provisional assignment status, could have anticipated a subsequent personnel order, it is difficult to find any defect in the consultation procedure.
/
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Relating to ‘Non-Satisfaction of Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Relating to ‘Calculation of Number of Employees (Inclusion of Registered Directors and Freelancers)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Relating to ‘Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’” – Date of decision: – Case number: Initial decision upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, justifiability of job transfer (reassignment to on-site safety monitoring position), 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 Precedents” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Relating to ‘Calculation of Number of Employees (Inclusion of Registered Directors and Freelancers)’,” in a new window.
※ The list of precedents relating to justifiability of job transfer (reassignment to on-site safety monitoring position) can be viewed together on the page “List of Precedents Relating to Justifiability of Job Transfer (Reassignment to On-Site Safety Monitoring Position).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
- Case name: Unfair dismissal precedent relating to “justifiability of job transfer (reassignment to on-site safety monitoring position)”
- Date of decision:
- Case number: Dismissed
- Decision-making body: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae3912 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
20 November 2025
- Summary of outcome:
A. Existence of business necessity for the transfer
In light of the shortage of safety management personnel at the company’s construction sites and the provision in the employment contract that the employee shall work at the place designated by the employer’s personnel order and perform the duties assigned, the business necessity of assigning the employee to an on-site safety monitoring position was rec…
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This case concerns an employee of a construction company who, following a personnel order transferring and reassigning him to an on-site safety monitoring position, regarded this as amounting in substance to unfair dismissal and applied to the Labor Relations Commission for relief.
The Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission comprehensively reviewed (i) the business necessity of the transfer order, (ii) the disadvantages to the employee’s daily life, and (iii) whether consultation procedures were followed in the personnel process, and dismissed the employee’s application for remedy for unfair dismissal.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether a transfer order to an on-site safety monitoring position, issued on the ground of a shortage of safety management personnel at construction sites, constitutes an unfair personnel measure that amounts to an abuse of rights under Article 23 of the Labor Standards Act, taking into account the disadvantages to the employee’s daily life and any deficiencies in the consultation procedure.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case found that: there were objective circumstances of a shortage of safety management personnel at the company’s construction sites; the employment contract clearly stated that “the employee shall work at the place designated by the employer’s personnel order and perform the duties assigned”; there was no change in the level of remuneration after the transfer, so there was no economic disadvantage; even if the employee was to perform duties different from his previous work, such disadvantage was not so great as to outweigh the business necessity of the personnel order; the employee, being in a provisional assignment status, could have anticipated a subsequent personnel order; and the employer claimed to have attempted consultation regarding the place of transfer.
In light of these factors, the Commission held that it was difficult to regard the transfer order as violating Article 23 of the Labor Standards Act or as constituting an abuse of rights.
The dismissal in this case was therefore found not to constitute unfair dismissal, on the ground that the employee’s assertion that the transfer order was, in substance, an unfair personnel measure equivalent to dismissal could not be accepted.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
For an employee to argue that a transfer or reassignment is unjust, it is not sufficient merely to state that “this is not the work I wanted.” The employee must specifically prove circumstances such as whether the disadvantages to daily life caused by the transfer clearly exceed the level that is ordinarily tolerable, and whether the exercise of personnel authority has a retaliatory or punitive character.
Employees should also carefully check in advance how provisions relating to personnel orders are stipulated in the employment contract or work rules, and to what extent wages, place of work, and job duties may be changed.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
When implementing transfers or reassignments, employers should: first, document and quantify the objective necessity for personnel reallocation (e.g., shortage of safety management personnel); second, establish reasonable criteria for selecting the employees subject to transfer; and third, keep records of the course of consultation with employees, such as emails and interview notes.
In particular, unlike redundancy dismissals, a relatively broad discretion is recognized for transfers and reassignments. However, employers must carefully examine in advance the place of assignment, commuting distance, and wage/allowance structure so that disadvantages to the employee’s daily life do not become excessive, and, where necessary, prepare supplementary measures.
This decision illustrates that, when determining the justifiability of transfers and reassignments, the Labor Relations Commission consistently applies a three-step legal framework of “business necessity – disadvantages to daily life – consultation procedure required under the principle of good faith.” In similar cases, both employees and employers should organize the facts based on this framework.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Existence of business necessity for the transfer
In light of the shortage of safety management personnel at the company’s construction sites and the fact that, under the employment contract, the employee is required to work at the place designated by the employer’s personnel order and perform the duties assigned, the business necessity of assigning the employee to an on-site safety monitoring position is recognized.
B. Disadvantages to daily life arising from the transfer
Considering that there was no change in the employee’s remuneration due to the transfer, and that the fact the employee must perform work unrelated to his previous duties does not outweigh the business necessity of the employer’s personnel order, the disadvantages to daily life are at a level the employee must bear.
C. Compliance with consultation procedures required under the principle of good faith
The employer claims to have consulted with the employee regarding the place of transfer, and, given that the employee, being in a provisional assignment status, could have anticipated a subsequent personnel order, it is difficult to find any defect in the consultation procedure.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Existence of business necessity for the transfer
In light of the shortage of safety management personnel at the company’s construction sites and the fact that, under the employment contract, the employee is required to work at the place designated by the employer’s personnel order and perform the duties assigned, the business necessity of assigning the employee to an on-site safety monitoring position is recognized.
B. Disadvantages to daily life arising from the transfer
Considering that there was no change in the employee’s remuneration due to the transfer, and that the fact the employee must perform work unrelated to his previous duties does not outweigh the business necessity of the employer’s personnel order, the disadvantages to daily life are at a level the employee must bear.
C. Compliance with consultation procedures required under the principle of good faith
The employer claims to have consulted with the employee regarding the place of transfer, and, given that the employee, being in a provisional assignment status, could have anticipated a subsequent personnel order, it is difficult to find any defect in the consultation procedure.
/
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Relating to ‘Non-Satisfaction of Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Relating to ‘Calculation of Number of Employees (Inclusion of Registered Directors and Freelancers)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Relating to ‘Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’” – Date of decision: – Case number: Initial decision upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, justifiability of job transfer (reassignment to on-site safety monitoring position), 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 Precedents” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Relating to ‘Calculation of Number of Employees (Inclusion of Registered Directors and Freelancers)’,” in a new window.
※ The list of precedents relating to justifiability of job transfer (reassignment to on-site safety monitoring position) can be viewed together on the page “List of Precedents Relating to Justifiability of Job Transfer (Reassignment to On-Site Safety Monitoring Position).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
