Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Decision Relating to “Transfer Order (Placement as Liquor Field Supporter)” (Unfair Dismissal 553)
- Date2026/07/18 04:12
- Read 27
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employer ultimately prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of a “transfer order (placement as liquor field supporter).”
Adjudicating body: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae350 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026-05-27 · Case outcome: Dismissed
Summary of key issues: a.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Overview of the Case
In this case, the employer consolidated and reorganized its branches to secure market share in the distribution sector, which created surplus personnel. The employer then issued transfer orders assigning these employees to the position of “liquor field supporter.” The employees claimed that this was an unfair personnel measure equivalent to unfair dismissal and filed an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission.
The Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission examined the legitimacy of the transfer orders mainly in terms of (i) the business necessity of the personnel changes and (ii) the degree of disadvantage to the employees’ living conditions, and ultimately dismissed the employees’ application.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether the transfer orders assigning surplus personnel, generated by branch consolidation, to the position of “liquor field supporter” constituted a legitimate exercise of managerial discretion in light of business necessity and the degree of disadvantage to the employees’ living conditions, or whether they amounted to an abuse of rights equivalent to unfair dismissal.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The adjudicating panel in this case relied on the following grounds: that the employer needed to reallocate personnel after consolidating branches to secure market share in the distribution market; that assigning the surplus personnel to the liquor field supporter position was reasonable from the standpoint of utilizing human resources; that there was no significant change in remuneration before and after the transfer, and that incentives, vehicles, activity expenses, and transportation expenses were in the nature of actual business expenses or were subject to annual variation; and that the new workplaces could not be regarded as so distant as to make commuting unduly difficult.
Taking these circumstances together, the Commission found that there was business necessity for the transfer orders, and that the disadvantages to the employees’ living conditions did not clearly exceed the range that employees are ordinarily expected to bear.
The Commission therefore held that the dismissal measures in this case could not be regarded as unfair dismissal arising from an abuse of managerial discretion, and that the transfer orders were legitimate. Accordingly, the application for remedy for unfair dismissal was to be dismissed.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, it should be understood that a transfer or reassignment does not automatically constitute unfair dismissal or an unfair transfer. The core criteria are whether there is business necessity and the degree of disadvantage to the employee’s living conditions.
To successfully challenge a transfer as unfair, it is important to sufficiently collect and organize concrete evidence showing that the disadvantages to living conditions clearly exceed what is ordinarily tolerable, such as a substantial and lasting reduction in actual pay, commuting distance or time that makes commuting practically difficult, or the loss of special benefits previously enjoyed through the existing duties.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s side, it is necessary to document the objective background of the transfer orders—such as branch consolidation, workforce restructuring, and market expansion strategies—as well as the criteria for selecting personnel, so that business necessity and the reasonableness of the selection of employees can be demonstrated.
In addition, if the employer analyzes in advance the impact on the pay structure, incentives, various allowances, and commuting distances, and shows efforts to mitigate disadvantages to employees’ living conditions—for example, by providing commuting support or adjusting allowances—the likelihood that the Labor Relations Commission will recognize the legitimacy of the exercise of managerial discretion increases.
In transfer and reassignment cases of this type, it is crucial for both employees and employers to accurately understand how the Labor Relations Commission balances business necessity against disadvantages to living conditions, and what kinds of evidence and explanations it considers important, and to formulate their dispute-prevention and response strategies accordingly.
2. Matters Decided
a. Overview of the Case and Procedural History
a. Whether there was business necessity
The Commission found that the employer consolidated branches to secure market share in the distribution market, which created surplus personnel, and that it assigned these employees to the liquor field supporter position. Accordingly, business necessity for the personnel orders was recognized.
b. Whether there was disadvantage to living conditions
① It was difficult to find that there was any drastic change in the employees’ remuneration before and after the transfer;
② The provision of vehicles, activity expenses, and transportation expenses was for the purpose of reimbursing actual expenses of sales personnel;
③ Incentives were not the same monetary benefit each year, as the criteria for payment changed annually;
④ It was difficult to regard the new workplaces as so distant as to make commuting difficult;
…
3. Summary of the Decision
a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
a. Whether there was business necessity
The Commission found that the employer consolidated branches to secure market share in the distribution market, which created surplus personnel, and that it assigned these employees to the liquor field supporter position. Accordingly, business necessity for the personnel orders was recognized.
b. Whether there was disadvantage to living conditions
① It was difficult to find that there was any drastic change in the employees’ remuneration before and after the transfer;
② The provision of vehicles, activity expenses, and transportation expenses was for the purpose of reimbursing actual expenses of sales personnel;
③ Incentives were not the same monetary benefit each year, as the criteria for payment changed annually;
④ It was difficult to regard the new workplaces as so distant as to make commuting difficult;
… /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Relating to ‘Non-Existence of Employee Status (Recruitment Negotiation by Text Message)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Relating to ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Relating to ‘Probationary Dismissal (Oral Notice)’”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, transfer order (placement as liquor field supporter), personnel transfer/relocation, restructuring, 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, “Unfair Dismissal Decision Relating to ‘Non-Existence of Employee Status (Recruitment Negotiation by Text Message)’,” in a new window.
※ You can view the list of decisions relating to transfer orders (placement as liquor field supporter) in the “List of Decisions Relating to Transfer Orders (Placement as Liquor Field Supporter).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the employer ultimately prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of a “transfer order (placement as liquor field supporter).”
Adjudicating body: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae350 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026-05-27 · Case outcome: Dismissed
Summary of key issues: a.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Overview of the Case
In this case, the employer consolidated and reorganized its branches to secure market share in the distribution sector, which created surplus personnel. The employer then issued transfer orders assigning these employees to the position of “liquor field supporter.” The employees claimed that this was an unfair personnel measure equivalent to unfair dismissal and filed an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission.
The Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission examined the legitimacy of the transfer orders mainly in terms of (i) the business necessity of the personnel changes and (ii) the degree of disadvantage to the employees’ living conditions, and ultimately dismissed the employees’ application.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether the transfer orders assigning surplus personnel, generated by branch consolidation, to the position of “liquor field supporter” constituted a legitimate exercise of managerial discretion in light of business necessity and the degree of disadvantage to the employees’ living conditions, or whether they amounted to an abuse of rights equivalent to unfair dismissal.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The adjudicating panel in this case relied on the following grounds: that the employer needed to reallocate personnel after consolidating branches to secure market share in the distribution market; that assigning the surplus personnel to the liquor field supporter position was reasonable from the standpoint of utilizing human resources; that there was no significant change in remuneration before and after the transfer, and that incentives, vehicles, activity expenses, and transportation expenses were in the nature of actual business expenses or were subject to annual variation; and that the new workplaces could not be regarded as so distant as to make commuting unduly difficult.
Taking these circumstances together, the Commission found that there was business necessity for the transfer orders, and that the disadvantages to the employees’ living conditions did not clearly exceed the range that employees are ordinarily expected to bear.
The Commission therefore held that the dismissal measures in this case could not be regarded as unfair dismissal arising from an abuse of managerial discretion, and that the transfer orders were legitimate. Accordingly, the application for remedy for unfair dismissal was to be dismissed.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, it should be understood that a transfer or reassignment does not automatically constitute unfair dismissal or an unfair transfer. The core criteria are whether there is business necessity and the degree of disadvantage to the employee’s living conditions.
To successfully challenge a transfer as unfair, it is important to sufficiently collect and organize concrete evidence showing that the disadvantages to living conditions clearly exceed what is ordinarily tolerable, such as a substantial and lasting reduction in actual pay, commuting distance or time that makes commuting practically difficult, or the loss of special benefits previously enjoyed through the existing duties.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s side, it is necessary to document the objective background of the transfer orders—such as branch consolidation, workforce restructuring, and market expansion strategies—as well as the criteria for selecting personnel, so that business necessity and the reasonableness of the selection of employees can be demonstrated.
In addition, if the employer analyzes in advance the impact on the pay structure, incentives, various allowances, and commuting distances, and shows efforts to mitigate disadvantages to employees’ living conditions—for example, by providing commuting support or adjusting allowances—the likelihood that the Labor Relations Commission will recognize the legitimacy of the exercise of managerial discretion increases.
In transfer and reassignment cases of this type, it is crucial for both employees and employers to accurately understand how the Labor Relations Commission balances business necessity against disadvantages to living conditions, and what kinds of evidence and explanations it considers important, and to formulate their dispute-prevention and response strategies accordingly.
2. Matters Decided
a. Overview of the Case and Procedural History
a. Whether there was business necessity
The Commission found that the employer consolidated branches to secure market share in the distribution market, which created surplus personnel, and that it assigned these employees to the liquor field supporter position. Accordingly, business necessity for the personnel orders was recognized.
b. Whether there was disadvantage to living conditions
① It was difficult to find that there was any drastic change in the employees’ remuneration before and after the transfer;
② The provision of vehicles, activity expenses, and transportation expenses was for the purpose of reimbursing actual expenses of sales personnel;
③ Incentives were not the same monetary benefit each year, as the criteria for payment changed annually;
④ It was difficult to regard the new workplaces as so distant as to make commuting difficult;
…
3. Summary of the Decision
a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
a. Whether there was business necessity
The Commission found that the employer consolidated branches to secure market share in the distribution market, which created surplus personnel, and that it assigned these employees to the liquor field supporter position. Accordingly, business necessity for the personnel orders was recognized.
b. Whether there was disadvantage to living conditions
① It was difficult to find that there was any drastic change in the employees’ remuneration before and after the transfer;
② The provision of vehicles, activity expenses, and transportation expenses was for the purpose of reimbursing actual expenses of sales personnel;
③ Incentives were not the same monetary benefit each year, as the criteria for payment changed annually;
④ It was difficult to regard the new workplaces as so distant as to make commuting difficult;
… /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Relating to ‘Non-Existence of Employee Status (Recruitment Negotiation by Text Message)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Relating to ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Relating to ‘Probationary Dismissal (Oral Notice)’”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, transfer order (placement as liquor field supporter), personnel transfer/relocation, restructuring, 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, “Unfair Dismissal Decision Relating to ‘Non-Existence of Employee Status (Recruitment Negotiation by Text Message)’,” in a new window.
※ You can view the list of decisions relating to transfer orders (placement as liquor field supporter) in the “List of Decisions Relating to Transfer Orders (Placement as Liquor Field Supporter).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
