Corporate trends / Performance record
“Legitimacy of Job Transfer (Reinstatement in Compliance with Labor Commission’s Remedy Order)” – Unfair Dismissal Case Summary (Unfair Dismissal 536)
- Date2026/07/12 04:10
- Read 16
[Case Information]
This case is a decision that concluded by upholding the first-instance ruling on the issue of “legitimacy of job transfer (reinstatement in compliance with a Labor Commission’s remedy order).”
Decision-making body: Central Labor Relations Commission 2025BuHae9536 ○ ○ ○ Application for Re-examination of Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026-06-01 · Case result: First-instance decision upheld
Summary of key issue:
Legitimacy of the job transfer – In a situation where the employer needed to reinstate the employee in order to comply with the first-instance Local Labor Relations Commission’s remedy order, the business necessity of the transfer was recognized; apart from a difference in work intensity, the disadvantages in the employee’s daily life did not appear to significantly exceed the level ordinarily to be borne by workers; and a good-faith consultation procedure as required under the principle of good faith was followed. Accordingly, the transfer was found to be legitimate.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this unfair dismissal remedy application, the first-instance Local Labor Relations Commission ruled in favor of the employee and ordered reinstatement to the original position. When the employer implemented this remedy order and reinstated the employee, it also carried out a job transfer, which then became the subject of a new dispute. The employee claimed that the transfer was in substance a disadvantageous measure equivalent to unfair dismissal and filed for re-examination with the Labor Relations Commission. The Central Labor Relations Commission focused its review on whether the transfer was legitimate.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is:
“When, following a remedy order for unfair dismissal, an employer orders a transfer assigning the reinstated employee to duties or a workplace different from the previous ones, whether such transfer constitutes an abusive and unfair exercise of the employer’s right—considering business necessity, disadvantages in the employee’s daily life, and the consultation process.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel held that the employer needed to reinstate the employee in order to comply with the first-instance Local Labor Relations Commission’s remedy order, and that personnel reallocation in that process was unavoidable, so the business necessity of the transfer was recognized. Although the transfer resulted in a difference in work intensity for the employee, it was difficult to view the disadvantages in the employee’s daily life as significantly exceeding the level ordinarily to be borne by workers. In addition, a good-faith consultation procedure, as required under the principle of good faith, had been followed in the course of the transfer. Therefore, the Commission found it difficult to conclude that the transfer violated Article 23(1) of the Labor Standards Act or constituted an abuse of rights.
Although the transfer itself was a disadvantageous personnel measure for the employee, the Commission determined that, when considering together the business necessity, the degree of disadvantages in daily life, and whether the consultation procedure was implemented, the employer’s action did not amount to unfair dismissal but rather constituted a legitimate exercise of managerial prerogative. It therefore held that upholding the first-instance Labor Relations Commission’s decision was appropriate.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s standpoint, when a transfer is made in the course of reinstatement following an unfair dismissal remedy order, the mere fact that “the position is different from before” will generally not suffice to establish an unfair transfer. To argue that the transfer constitutes an abuse of rights, it is necessary to specifically organize and submit to the Labor Relations Commission: whether the disadvantages in daily life caused by the transfer clearly exceed the level ordinarily to be borne; whether there are circumstances suggesting that the employer ordered the transfer for retaliatory or punitive purposes; and whether the consultation process was merely formal.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, when a transfer is needed for workforce management while implementing a Labor Relations Commission’s remedy order after an unfair dismissal finding, the following should be observed. First, keep internal records of the objective necessity for changes in personnel allocation and the rational criteria for selecting the transferee. Second, review changes in commuting, wages, and job content resulting from the transfer to ensure that disadvantages in the employee’s daily life are not excessive, and, if necessary, mitigate such disadvantages through allowances or support measures. Third, sufficiently consult with the employee before and after the transfer and document that process, as this will be highly beneficial in having the legitimacy of the transfer recognized later by the Labor Relations Commission or the courts.
Labor Law Firm Law& provides practical solutions to both employees and employers in disputes involving transfers, reassignment, and unfair dismissal, based on case law and practical standards of the Labor Relations Commission and the courts. When issues such as applications for remedies to the Labor Relations Commission, collective redundancies, or transfers arise in the field of HR and labor relations, it is advisable to seek professional advice from the early stages of the case.
2. Matters Decided
a. Case Overview and Procedural History
Legitimacy of the job transfer – In a situation where the employer needed to reinstate the employee in order to comply with the first-instance Local Labor Relations Commission’s remedy order, the business necessity of the transfer was recognized; apart from a difference in work intensity, the disadvantages in the employee’s daily life did not appear to significantly exceed the level ordinarily to be borne by workers; and a good-faith consultation procedure as required under the principle of good faith was followed. Accordingly, the transfer was legitimate.
3. Summary of Decision
a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
Legitimacy of the job transfer – In a situation where the employer needed to reinstate the employee in order to comply with the first-instance Local Labor Relations Commission’s remedy order, the business necessity of the transfer was recognized; apart from a difference in work intensity, the disadvantages in the employee’s daily life did not appear to significantly exceed the level ordinarily to be borne by workers; and a good-faith consultation procedure as required under the principle of good faith was followed. Accordingly, the transfer was legitimate. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Case on ‘Non-Existence of Expectation of Renewal (Expiry of Fixed Term)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Case on ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Case on ‘Dismissal (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’” – Decision date: – Case number: Dismissed
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, legitimacy of job transfer (reinstatement in compliance with Labor Commission’s remedy order), personnel movement·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 part of Labor Law Firm Law&’s “Unfair Dismissal Case Law” series.
※ The previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Case on ‘Non-Existence of Expectation of Renewal (Expiry of Fixed Term)’,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to legitimacy of job transfer (reinstatement in compliance with Labor Commission’s remedy order) can be found in the “List of Decisions on Legitimacy of Job Transfer (Reinstatement in Compliance with Labor Commission’s Remedy Order).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision that concluded by upholding the first-instance ruling on the issue of “legitimacy of job transfer (reinstatement in compliance with a Labor Commission’s remedy order).”
Decision-making body: Central Labor Relations Commission 2025BuHae9536 ○ ○ ○ Application for Re-examination of Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026-06-01 · Case result: First-instance decision upheld
Summary of key issue:
Legitimacy of the job transfer – In a situation where the employer needed to reinstate the employee in order to comply with the first-instance Local Labor Relations Commission’s remedy order, the business necessity of the transfer was recognized; apart from a difference in work intensity, the disadvantages in the employee’s daily life did not appear to significantly exceed the level ordinarily to be borne by workers; and a good-faith consultation procedure as required under the principle of good faith was followed. Accordingly, the transfer was found to be legitimate.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this unfair dismissal remedy application, the first-instance Local Labor Relations Commission ruled in favor of the employee and ordered reinstatement to the original position. When the employer implemented this remedy order and reinstated the employee, it also carried out a job transfer, which then became the subject of a new dispute. The employee claimed that the transfer was in substance a disadvantageous measure equivalent to unfair dismissal and filed for re-examination with the Labor Relations Commission. The Central Labor Relations Commission focused its review on whether the transfer was legitimate.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is:
“When, following a remedy order for unfair dismissal, an employer orders a transfer assigning the reinstated employee to duties or a workplace different from the previous ones, whether such transfer constitutes an abusive and unfair exercise of the employer’s right—considering business necessity, disadvantages in the employee’s daily life, and the consultation process.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel held that the employer needed to reinstate the employee in order to comply with the first-instance Local Labor Relations Commission’s remedy order, and that personnel reallocation in that process was unavoidable, so the business necessity of the transfer was recognized. Although the transfer resulted in a difference in work intensity for the employee, it was difficult to view the disadvantages in the employee’s daily life as significantly exceeding the level ordinarily to be borne by workers. In addition, a good-faith consultation procedure, as required under the principle of good faith, had been followed in the course of the transfer. Therefore, the Commission found it difficult to conclude that the transfer violated Article 23(1) of the Labor Standards Act or constituted an abuse of rights.
Although the transfer itself was a disadvantageous personnel measure for the employee, the Commission determined that, when considering together the business necessity, the degree of disadvantages in daily life, and whether the consultation procedure was implemented, the employer’s action did not amount to unfair dismissal but rather constituted a legitimate exercise of managerial prerogative. It therefore held that upholding the first-instance Labor Relations Commission’s decision was appropriate.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s standpoint, when a transfer is made in the course of reinstatement following an unfair dismissal remedy order, the mere fact that “the position is different from before” will generally not suffice to establish an unfair transfer. To argue that the transfer constitutes an abuse of rights, it is necessary to specifically organize and submit to the Labor Relations Commission: whether the disadvantages in daily life caused by the transfer clearly exceed the level ordinarily to be borne; whether there are circumstances suggesting that the employer ordered the transfer for retaliatory or punitive purposes; and whether the consultation process was merely formal.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, when a transfer is needed for workforce management while implementing a Labor Relations Commission’s remedy order after an unfair dismissal finding, the following should be observed. First, keep internal records of the objective necessity for changes in personnel allocation and the rational criteria for selecting the transferee. Second, review changes in commuting, wages, and job content resulting from the transfer to ensure that disadvantages in the employee’s daily life are not excessive, and, if necessary, mitigate such disadvantages through allowances or support measures. Third, sufficiently consult with the employee before and after the transfer and document that process, as this will be highly beneficial in having the legitimacy of the transfer recognized later by the Labor Relations Commission or the courts.
Labor Law Firm Law& provides practical solutions to both employees and employers in disputes involving transfers, reassignment, and unfair dismissal, based on case law and practical standards of the Labor Relations Commission and the courts. When issues such as applications for remedies to the Labor Relations Commission, collective redundancies, or transfers arise in the field of HR and labor relations, it is advisable to seek professional advice from the early stages of the case.
2. Matters Decided
a. Case Overview and Procedural History
Legitimacy of the job transfer – In a situation where the employer needed to reinstate the employee in order to comply with the first-instance Local Labor Relations Commission’s remedy order, the business necessity of the transfer was recognized; apart from a difference in work intensity, the disadvantages in the employee’s daily life did not appear to significantly exceed the level ordinarily to be borne by workers; and a good-faith consultation procedure as required under the principle of good faith was followed. Accordingly, the transfer was legitimate.
3. Summary of Decision
a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
Legitimacy of the job transfer – In a situation where the employer needed to reinstate the employee in order to comply with the first-instance Local Labor Relations Commission’s remedy order, the business necessity of the transfer was recognized; apart from a difference in work intensity, the disadvantages in the employee’s daily life did not appear to significantly exceed the level ordinarily to be borne by workers; and a good-faith consultation procedure as required under the principle of good faith was followed. Accordingly, the transfer was legitimate. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Case on ‘Non-Existence of Expectation of Renewal (Expiry of Fixed Term)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Case on ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Case on ‘Dismissal (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’” – Decision date: – Case number: Dismissed
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, legitimacy of job transfer (reinstatement in compliance with Labor Commission’s remedy order), personnel movement·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 part of Labor Law Firm Law&’s “Unfair Dismissal Case Law” series.
※ The previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Case on ‘Non-Existence of Expectation of Renewal (Expiry of Fixed Term)’,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to legitimacy of job transfer (reinstatement in compliance with Labor Commission’s remedy order) can be found in the “List of Decisions on Legitimacy of Job Transfer (Reinstatement in Compliance with Labor Commission’s Remedy Order).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
