Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Case on “Legitimacy of Job Transfer (Employee with Disability Rating as a National Merit Recipient)” (Unfair Dismissal 541)
- Date2026/07/14 04:07
- Read 21
[Case Information]
This case is a decision that was concluded by upholding the first-instance decision on the issue of “legitimacy of job transfer (employee with disability rating as a national merit recipient).”
Decision Committee: Central Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae9578 ○ ○ ○ Application for Re-examination of Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026-05-29 · Result: First-instance decision upheld
Key Issue Summary:
A. Whether there was a business necessity for the transfer
(1) The employee is a national merit recipient who has been assigned a disability rating, and thus the employer is required to allocate work with due consideration for the employee’s health condition;
(2) The frequency of the employee’s use of sick leave and time off for personal reasons is difficult to regard as ordinary;
(3) If the employee is assigned to shift work rather than daytime-only work, it becomes difficult to secure an immediate replacement when the employee uses sick leave or time off, etc.
In light of the above, the transfer in this case was implemented to improve the efficiency of the staff and to enhance their willingness to work, and therefore was found to have business necessity.
1. Legal Implications
In this case, the central issue was the legitimacy of a transfer order that was directly connected to an alleged unfair dismissal. In the course of disputing the lawfulness of the transfer before the Labor Relations Commission, the decision presented criteria that Labor Law Firm Law& can refer to in similar matters. In particular, the key points are (i) under what standards business necessity is recognized for transfer measures concerning an employee who is a national merit recipient with a disability rating, and (ii) how the assessment of disadvantages in living conditions is conducted.
Ⅰ. Case Overview
The employee is a national merit recipient who has been assigned a disability rating and had been working under a primarily daytime work schedule. The employer, citing the employee’s frequent use of sick leave and time off for personal reasons as well as the employee’s health condition, took a personnel measure transferring the employee to a different work pattern that did not involve shift work. The employee, in turn, claimed that this transfer constituted a disadvantageous measure equivalent to an unfair dismissal and applied to the Labor Relations Commission for relief.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether, in relation to an employee who is a national merit recipient with a disability rating, a transfer order based on frequent use of sick leave and time off for personal reasons constitutes a legitimate exercise of managerial prerogative grounded in business necessity, or whether it is an unfair measure that amounts to an abuse of rights in violation of Article 23(1) of the Labor Standards Act.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The decision panel in this case held that, given (i) the employee is a national merit recipient with a disability rating, and thus the employer needs to allocate work with special consideration for the employee’s health condition; (ii) the frequency of the employee’s use of sick leave and time off for personal reasons had exceeded ordinary levels and was imposing a significant burden on business operations; and (iii) if the employee were placed in a shift position, it would be difficult to secure immediate replacement personnel when the employee used sick leave or time off, thereby causing serious disruption to personnel management, the transfer in question was a personnel measure aimed at improving work efficiency, protecting the employee’s health, and rationalizing personnel management, and thus business necessity was recognized.
The dismissal in this case was found not to be unfair, on the grounds that the disadvantages in the employee’s living conditions resulting from the transfer did not clearly exceed the range that an ordinary employee would be expected to endure, and that there was insufficient evidence to view the transfer itself as a punitive measure intended solely to exclude the employee or to impose disadvantages.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s standpoint, to argue that a transfer or reassignment is unfair, it is necessary to prove with concrete evidence that the disadvantages in living conditions caused by the transfer clearly exceed the range that can ordinarily be tolerated—beyond merely stating that it is “inconvenient.” This includes, for example, deterioration of health, excessive commuting or work burdens, and substantial difficulty in receiving treatment or rehabilitation. In particular, for national merit recipients or employees with disabilities, it is important to compare and explain, through medical records, treatment plans, and opinions from attending physicians, how the previous duties and the post-transfer duties respectively affect the employee’s health.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, when issuing a transfer order, it is necessary to document and keep records of (i) the objective necessity for changes in personnel allocation; (ii) the rational criteria for selecting the particular employee as the subject of transfer; and (iii) any measures taken to minimize disadvantages in the employee’s living conditions resulting from the transfer (such as adjusting work patterns, securing time for hospital visits, etc.). In particular, with respect to vulnerable employees such as national merit recipients with disability ratings and persons with disabilities, it is important to keep detailed records of the process of job adjustment that takes into account health limitations and treatment schedules, the content of consultations, and the review of possible alternative duties, so that the legitimacy of the transfer can be more readily recognized by the Labor Relations Commission at a later stage.
In this type of case, both employers and employees should understand that a transfer or reassignment does not automatically constitute an unfair dismissal or redundancy dismissal. It is crucial to fully grasp the legal framework, which balances business necessity against disadvantages in living conditions, and to prepare the relevant facts and evidence accordingly.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Whether there was business necessity for the transfer
(1) The employee is a national merit recipient who has been assigned a disability rating, and thus the employer needs to allocate work with due consideration for the employee’s health condition;
(2) The frequency of the employee’s use of sick leave and time off for personal reasons is difficult to regard as ordinary;
(3) If the employee is assigned to shift work rather than daytime-only work, it becomes difficult to secure an immediate replacement when the employee uses sick leave or time off, etc.
In light of the above, the transfer in this case was implemented for the purpose of improving the efficiency of the staff and enhancing their willingness to work, and therefore is deemed to have business necessity.
B. Whether there were disadvantages in living conditions due to the transfer
The employee, as a result of the transfer, on weekdays is able to use medical services…
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Whether there was business necessity for the transfer
(1) The employee is a national merit recipient who has been assigned a disability rating, and thus the employer needs to allocate work with due consideration for the employee’s health condition;
(2) The frequency of the employee’s use of sick leave and time off for personal reasons is difficult to regard as ordinary;
(3) If the employee is assigned to shift work rather than daytime-only work, it becomes difficult to secure an immediate replacement when the employee uses sick leave or time off, etc.
In light of the above, the transfer in this case was implemented for the purpose of improving the efficiency of the staff and enhancing their willingness to work, and therefore is deemed to have business necessity.
B. Whether there were disadvantages in living conditions due to the transfer
The employee, as a result of the transfer, on weekdays is able to use medical services… /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Dismissal Rejected (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’” – Date of Decision: – Case Number: Rejected
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark Made by Telephone)’”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, legitimacy of job transfer (employee with disability rating as a national merit recipient), personnel transfer · reassignment, 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 Decision” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ The previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Workplace Bullying Separation Measure (Team Leader Placed on Standby)’,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to legitimacy of job transfer (employee with disability rating as a national merit recipient) can be viewed together in the “List of Decisions Related to Legitimacy of Job Transfer (Employee with Disability Rating as a National Merit Recipient).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision that was concluded by upholding the first-instance decision on the issue of “legitimacy of job transfer (employee with disability rating as a national merit recipient).”
Decision Committee: Central Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae9578 ○ ○ ○ Application for Re-examination of Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026-05-29 · Result: First-instance decision upheld
Key Issue Summary:
A. Whether there was a business necessity for the transfer
(1) The employee is a national merit recipient who has been assigned a disability rating, and thus the employer is required to allocate work with due consideration for the employee’s health condition;
(2) The frequency of the employee’s use of sick leave and time off for personal reasons is difficult to regard as ordinary;
(3) If the employee is assigned to shift work rather than daytime-only work, it becomes difficult to secure an immediate replacement when the employee uses sick leave or time off, etc.
In light of the above, the transfer in this case was implemented to improve the efficiency of the staff and to enhance their willingness to work, and therefore was found to have business necessity.
1. Legal Implications
In this case, the central issue was the legitimacy of a transfer order that was directly connected to an alleged unfair dismissal. In the course of disputing the lawfulness of the transfer before the Labor Relations Commission, the decision presented criteria that Labor Law Firm Law& can refer to in similar matters. In particular, the key points are (i) under what standards business necessity is recognized for transfer measures concerning an employee who is a national merit recipient with a disability rating, and (ii) how the assessment of disadvantages in living conditions is conducted.
Ⅰ. Case Overview
The employee is a national merit recipient who has been assigned a disability rating and had been working under a primarily daytime work schedule. The employer, citing the employee’s frequent use of sick leave and time off for personal reasons as well as the employee’s health condition, took a personnel measure transferring the employee to a different work pattern that did not involve shift work. The employee, in turn, claimed that this transfer constituted a disadvantageous measure equivalent to an unfair dismissal and applied to the Labor Relations Commission for relief.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether, in relation to an employee who is a national merit recipient with a disability rating, a transfer order based on frequent use of sick leave and time off for personal reasons constitutes a legitimate exercise of managerial prerogative grounded in business necessity, or whether it is an unfair measure that amounts to an abuse of rights in violation of Article 23(1) of the Labor Standards Act.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The decision panel in this case held that, given (i) the employee is a national merit recipient with a disability rating, and thus the employer needs to allocate work with special consideration for the employee’s health condition; (ii) the frequency of the employee’s use of sick leave and time off for personal reasons had exceeded ordinary levels and was imposing a significant burden on business operations; and (iii) if the employee were placed in a shift position, it would be difficult to secure immediate replacement personnel when the employee used sick leave or time off, thereby causing serious disruption to personnel management, the transfer in question was a personnel measure aimed at improving work efficiency, protecting the employee’s health, and rationalizing personnel management, and thus business necessity was recognized.
The dismissal in this case was found not to be unfair, on the grounds that the disadvantages in the employee’s living conditions resulting from the transfer did not clearly exceed the range that an ordinary employee would be expected to endure, and that there was insufficient evidence to view the transfer itself as a punitive measure intended solely to exclude the employee or to impose disadvantages.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s standpoint, to argue that a transfer or reassignment is unfair, it is necessary to prove with concrete evidence that the disadvantages in living conditions caused by the transfer clearly exceed the range that can ordinarily be tolerated—beyond merely stating that it is “inconvenient.” This includes, for example, deterioration of health, excessive commuting or work burdens, and substantial difficulty in receiving treatment or rehabilitation. In particular, for national merit recipients or employees with disabilities, it is important to compare and explain, through medical records, treatment plans, and opinions from attending physicians, how the previous duties and the post-transfer duties respectively affect the employee’s health.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, when issuing a transfer order, it is necessary to document and keep records of (i) the objective necessity for changes in personnel allocation; (ii) the rational criteria for selecting the particular employee as the subject of transfer; and (iii) any measures taken to minimize disadvantages in the employee’s living conditions resulting from the transfer (such as adjusting work patterns, securing time for hospital visits, etc.). In particular, with respect to vulnerable employees such as national merit recipients with disability ratings and persons with disabilities, it is important to keep detailed records of the process of job adjustment that takes into account health limitations and treatment schedules, the content of consultations, and the review of possible alternative duties, so that the legitimacy of the transfer can be more readily recognized by the Labor Relations Commission at a later stage.
In this type of case, both employers and employees should understand that a transfer or reassignment does not automatically constitute an unfair dismissal or redundancy dismissal. It is crucial to fully grasp the legal framework, which balances business necessity against disadvantages in living conditions, and to prepare the relevant facts and evidence accordingly.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Whether there was business necessity for the transfer
(1) The employee is a national merit recipient who has been assigned a disability rating, and thus the employer needs to allocate work with due consideration for the employee’s health condition;
(2) The frequency of the employee’s use of sick leave and time off for personal reasons is difficult to regard as ordinary;
(3) If the employee is assigned to shift work rather than daytime-only work, it becomes difficult to secure an immediate replacement when the employee uses sick leave or time off, etc.
In light of the above, the transfer in this case was implemented for the purpose of improving the efficiency of the staff and enhancing their willingness to work, and therefore is deemed to have business necessity.
B. Whether there were disadvantages in living conditions due to the transfer
The employee, as a result of the transfer, on weekdays is able to use medical services…
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Whether there was business necessity for the transfer
(1) The employee is a national merit recipient who has been assigned a disability rating, and thus the employer needs to allocate work with due consideration for the employee’s health condition;
(2) The frequency of the employee’s use of sick leave and time off for personal reasons is difficult to regard as ordinary;
(3) If the employee is assigned to shift work rather than daytime-only work, it becomes difficult to secure an immediate replacement when the employee uses sick leave or time off, etc.
In light of the above, the transfer in this case was implemented for the purpose of improving the efficiency of the staff and enhancing their willingness to work, and therefore is deemed to have business necessity.
B. Whether there were disadvantages in living conditions due to the transfer
The employee, as a result of the transfer, on weekdays is able to use medical services… /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Dismissal Rejected (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’” – Date of Decision: – Case Number: Rejected
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark Made by Telephone)’”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, legitimacy of job transfer (employee with disability rating as a national merit recipient), personnel transfer · reassignment, 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 Decision” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ The previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Workplace Bullying Separation Measure (Team Leader Placed on Standby)’,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to legitimacy of job transfer (employee with disability rating as a national merit recipient) can be viewed together in the “List of Decisions Related to Legitimacy of Job Transfer (Employee with Disability Rating as a National Merit Recipient).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
