Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Case on “Reasonableness of Transfer (Job Rotation Transfer)” (Unfair Dismissal 518)
- Date2026/07/04 04:06
- Read 29
This case concerns a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “reasonableness of transfer (job rotation transfer).”
Adjudicating body: Jeju Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae92 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026-06-05 · Case outcome: Dismissed
Summary of key issues:
A. Existence of business necessity
The transfer order issued to the employee was a personnel measure implemented under a job rotation system. Article 16 of the personnel regulations provides that the job rotation cycle shall be between three and five years. As the employee had been working at the Jeju branch since 2 December 2020, he fell within the scope of the job rotation system, and thus business necessity was recognized.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this unfair dismissal case, the issue before the Labor Relations Commission was whether the employer’s measure of transferring the Jeju branch manager to a team member position, pursuant to a job rotation system based on the personnel regulations, constituted a legitimate transfer. The employee argued that the transfer changed his position from branch manager to team member, reduced his allowances, and caused significant disadvantages in terms of housing, commuting, childcare, and care for his elderly mother, and therefore amounted to an unfair transfer or de facto unfair dismissal. The Jeju Regional Labor Relations Commission focused on the existence of business necessity for the transfer and the degree of disadvantage in the employee’s personal life, and dismissed the employee’s application for remedy.
This decision is practically very significant in the consultation practice of Labor Law Firm Law&, in that it reaffirms the “standard for balancing business necessity against disadvantages in personal life,” which frequently arises not only in unfair dismissal cases but also in the broader exercise of managerial prerogatives such as transfers, reassignments, and redundancies.
Ⅱ. Issues
The issue in this case is whether, in a situation where a transfer order has been issued under a job rotation system, the transfer can be regarded as an abuse of rights and thus as an unfair dismissal or unfair transfer when business necessity and disadvantages in personal life are weighed and balanced.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case held that business necessity for the transfer was established, in light of the facts that Article 16 of the personnel regulations expressly provides for a job rotation cycle of three to five years, that the employee had worked at the Jeju branch for an extended period since 2 December 2020 and thus fell within the scope of the job rotation system, and that the transfer was made in accordance with the general criteria for operating the job rotation system.
The panel further found that, although there was an economic disadvantage due to a reduction in allowances resulting from the change in position from branch manager to team member, there were provisions providing a legal basis for the change in allowances; that the circumstances relating to housing, commuting, childcare, and care for the employee’s elderly mother were matters of personal life and did not amount to particularly excessive discrimination or disadvantage compared to other employees; and that there was insufficient evidence to conclude that the transfer itself went significantly beyond the level of disadvantage that employees ordinarily must endure. Accordingly, the panel did not consider the disadvantages in personal life to be excessive.
Moreover, under the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence, the legitimacy of a transfer must be assessed comprehensively by examining: (1) whether there is an objective need to change the allocation of personnel (necessity of reassignment), (2) whether it is reasonable to have selected the employee concerned as the subject of the reassignment (reasonableness of personnel selection), and (3) whether the transfer enhances the efficiency of business operations. In this case, the panel found that the reasonableness of personnel selection was established, given that the subject of the transfer had been identified based on pre-established personnel management criteria, namely the job rotation system.
Therefore, even though the transfer resulted in a reduction in allowances and inconvenience in the employee’s personal life, the panel found it difficult to conclude that these disadvantages significantly exceeded the level that employees ordinarily must endure, or that the transfer constituted an unfair personnel measure prohibited under Article 23(1) of the Labor Standards Act or an abuse of the employer’s rights. The panel thus held that the transfer was a legitimate exercise of managerial prerogative and did not constitute an unfair dismissal or unfair transfer.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, to assert that a transfer or reassignment is unfair, mere dissatisfaction or inconvenience in personal life is insufficient. The employee must specifically prove that the transfer clearly deviates from the company’s personnel regulations or established practices, or that the transfer was applied in an exceptionally disadvantageous manner only to the employee, and that the resulting economic, psychological, and family-life disadvantages “significantly exceed the level that must ordinarily be endured.”
In addition, in workplaces where a job rotation system or personnel regulations exist, it is necessary to carefully organize and submit to the Labor Relations Commission information such as: from when the employee has worked at the relevant workplace or in the relevant position; whether, compared to past cases of job rotation, the transfer in question was operated in an exceptionally disadvantageous manner; and whether the employee was unfairly excluded from consultation or explanation procedures during the transfer process.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, it is important to clearly set out the job rotation system and criteria for transfers and reassignments in personnel regulations or work rules, and to apply those criteria consistently in actual practice. In particular, it is helpful at the Labor Relations Commission or court stage to have clear written records specifying, for example, how long an employee must work at a particular branch to become subject to job rotation, how allowances and wages are adjusted upon a change in position, and what the legal basis is for such adjustments, as this will greatly assist in proving business necessity for the transfer and the reasonableness of personnel selection.
Furthermore, where an employee appears to suffer excessive disadvantages in personal life due to a transfer, it is advisable to seek ways to mitigate such disadvantages in advance through consultation and explanation, and, where necessary, to consider reasonable supplementary measures such as commuting support or temporary allowance protection. By implementing such procedural and substantive improvements, employers can avoid extreme measures such as redundancies while still exercising their managerial prerogatives in a stable manner.
2. Matters Adjudicated
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Existence of Business Necessity
The transfer order issued to the employee was a personnel measure implemented under a job rotation system. Article 16 of the personnel regulations provides that the job rotation cycle shall be between three and five years. As the employee had been working at the Jeju branch since 2 December 2020, he fell within the scope of the job rotation system, and thus business necessity was recognized.
B. Existence of Disadvantages in Personal Life
Although there was a change in allowances due to the transfer from branch manager to team member, there were provisions providing a legal basis for such change. The disadvantages arising from housing, commuting, childcare, and care for the employee’s elderly mother cannot readily be regarded as having been imposed in a manner that was particularly unfair or disadvantageous only to the employee…
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Existence of Business Necessity
The transfer order issued to the employee was a personnel measure implemented under a job rotation system. Article 16 of the personnel regulations provides that the job rotation cycle shall be between three and five years. As the employee had been working at the Jeju branch since 2 December 2020, he fell within the scope of the job rotation system, and thus business necessity was recognized.
B. Existence of Disadvantages in Personal Life
Although there was a change in allowances due to the transfer from branch manager to team member, there were provisions providing a legal basis for such change. The disadvantages arising from housing, commuting, childcare, and care for the employee’s elderly mother cannot readily be regarded as having been imposed in a manner that was particularly unfair or disadvantageous only to the employee… /
[More Related Decisions]
- “‘Dismissal of Application (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Date of decision: – Case outcome: Dismissed
- “‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
- “‘Non-Formation of Employment Offer (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Date of decision: – Case outcome: Initial decision upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, reasonableness of transfer (job rotation transfer), personnel measures·transfer, 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, “‘Mutual Termination (Resignation Notice via KakaoTalk)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ You can also view the list of decisions related to reasonableness of transfer (job rotation transfer) at “List of Decisions on Reasonableness of Transfer (Job Rotation Transfer).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
Adjudicating body: Jeju Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae92 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026-06-05 · Case outcome: Dismissed
Summary of key issues:
A. Existence of business necessity
The transfer order issued to the employee was a personnel measure implemented under a job rotation system. Article 16 of the personnel regulations provides that the job rotation cycle shall be between three and five years. As the employee had been working at the Jeju branch since 2 December 2020, he fell within the scope of the job rotation system, and thus business necessity was recognized.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this unfair dismissal case, the issue before the Labor Relations Commission was whether the employer’s measure of transferring the Jeju branch manager to a team member position, pursuant to a job rotation system based on the personnel regulations, constituted a legitimate transfer. The employee argued that the transfer changed his position from branch manager to team member, reduced his allowances, and caused significant disadvantages in terms of housing, commuting, childcare, and care for his elderly mother, and therefore amounted to an unfair transfer or de facto unfair dismissal. The Jeju Regional Labor Relations Commission focused on the existence of business necessity for the transfer and the degree of disadvantage in the employee’s personal life, and dismissed the employee’s application for remedy.
This decision is practically very significant in the consultation practice of Labor Law Firm Law&, in that it reaffirms the “standard for balancing business necessity against disadvantages in personal life,” which frequently arises not only in unfair dismissal cases but also in the broader exercise of managerial prerogatives such as transfers, reassignments, and redundancies.
Ⅱ. Issues
The issue in this case is whether, in a situation where a transfer order has been issued under a job rotation system, the transfer can be regarded as an abuse of rights and thus as an unfair dismissal or unfair transfer when business necessity and disadvantages in personal life are weighed and balanced.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case held that business necessity for the transfer was established, in light of the facts that Article 16 of the personnel regulations expressly provides for a job rotation cycle of three to five years, that the employee had worked at the Jeju branch for an extended period since 2 December 2020 and thus fell within the scope of the job rotation system, and that the transfer was made in accordance with the general criteria for operating the job rotation system.
The panel further found that, although there was an economic disadvantage due to a reduction in allowances resulting from the change in position from branch manager to team member, there were provisions providing a legal basis for the change in allowances; that the circumstances relating to housing, commuting, childcare, and care for the employee’s elderly mother were matters of personal life and did not amount to particularly excessive discrimination or disadvantage compared to other employees; and that there was insufficient evidence to conclude that the transfer itself went significantly beyond the level of disadvantage that employees ordinarily must endure. Accordingly, the panel did not consider the disadvantages in personal life to be excessive.
Moreover, under the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence, the legitimacy of a transfer must be assessed comprehensively by examining: (1) whether there is an objective need to change the allocation of personnel (necessity of reassignment), (2) whether it is reasonable to have selected the employee concerned as the subject of the reassignment (reasonableness of personnel selection), and (3) whether the transfer enhances the efficiency of business operations. In this case, the panel found that the reasonableness of personnel selection was established, given that the subject of the transfer had been identified based on pre-established personnel management criteria, namely the job rotation system.
Therefore, even though the transfer resulted in a reduction in allowances and inconvenience in the employee’s personal life, the panel found it difficult to conclude that these disadvantages significantly exceeded the level that employees ordinarily must endure, or that the transfer constituted an unfair personnel measure prohibited under Article 23(1) of the Labor Standards Act or an abuse of the employer’s rights. The panel thus held that the transfer was a legitimate exercise of managerial prerogative and did not constitute an unfair dismissal or unfair transfer.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, to assert that a transfer or reassignment is unfair, mere dissatisfaction or inconvenience in personal life is insufficient. The employee must specifically prove that the transfer clearly deviates from the company’s personnel regulations or established practices, or that the transfer was applied in an exceptionally disadvantageous manner only to the employee, and that the resulting economic, psychological, and family-life disadvantages “significantly exceed the level that must ordinarily be endured.”
In addition, in workplaces where a job rotation system or personnel regulations exist, it is necessary to carefully organize and submit to the Labor Relations Commission information such as: from when the employee has worked at the relevant workplace or in the relevant position; whether, compared to past cases of job rotation, the transfer in question was operated in an exceptionally disadvantageous manner; and whether the employee was unfairly excluded from consultation or explanation procedures during the transfer process.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, it is important to clearly set out the job rotation system and criteria for transfers and reassignments in personnel regulations or work rules, and to apply those criteria consistently in actual practice. In particular, it is helpful at the Labor Relations Commission or court stage to have clear written records specifying, for example, how long an employee must work at a particular branch to become subject to job rotation, how allowances and wages are adjusted upon a change in position, and what the legal basis is for such adjustments, as this will greatly assist in proving business necessity for the transfer and the reasonableness of personnel selection.
Furthermore, where an employee appears to suffer excessive disadvantages in personal life due to a transfer, it is advisable to seek ways to mitigate such disadvantages in advance through consultation and explanation, and, where necessary, to consider reasonable supplementary measures such as commuting support or temporary allowance protection. By implementing such procedural and substantive improvements, employers can avoid extreme measures such as redundancies while still exercising their managerial prerogatives in a stable manner.
2. Matters Adjudicated
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Existence of Business Necessity
The transfer order issued to the employee was a personnel measure implemented under a job rotation system. Article 16 of the personnel regulations provides that the job rotation cycle shall be between three and five years. As the employee had been working at the Jeju branch since 2 December 2020, he fell within the scope of the job rotation system, and thus business necessity was recognized.
B. Existence of Disadvantages in Personal Life
Although there was a change in allowances due to the transfer from branch manager to team member, there were provisions providing a legal basis for such change. The disadvantages arising from housing, commuting, childcare, and care for the employee’s elderly mother cannot readily be regarded as having been imposed in a manner that was particularly unfair or disadvantageous only to the employee…
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Existence of Business Necessity
The transfer order issued to the employee was a personnel measure implemented under a job rotation system. Article 16 of the personnel regulations provides that the job rotation cycle shall be between three and five years. As the employee had been working at the Jeju branch since 2 December 2020, he fell within the scope of the job rotation system, and thus business necessity was recognized.
B. Existence of Disadvantages in Personal Life
Although there was a change in allowances due to the transfer from branch manager to team member, there were provisions providing a legal basis for such change. The disadvantages arising from housing, commuting, childcare, and care for the employee’s elderly mother cannot readily be regarded as having been imposed in a manner that was particularly unfair or disadvantageous only to the employee… /
[More Related Decisions]
- “‘Dismissal of Application (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Date of decision: – Case outcome: Dismissed
- “‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
- “‘Non-Formation of Employment Offer (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Date of decision: – Case outcome: Initial decision upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, reasonableness of transfer (job rotation transfer), personnel measures·transfer, 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, “‘Mutual Termination (Resignation Notice via KakaoTalk)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ You can also view the list of decisions related to reasonableness of transfer (job rotation transfer) at “List of Decisions on Reasonableness of Transfer (Job Rotation Transfer).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
