Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning “Reassignment Due to Workplace Bullying (Call Center Counselor)” (Unfair Dismissal 601)
- Date2026/08/06 04:23
- Read 9
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “reassignment due to workplace bullying (call center counselor).”
Decision body: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026BuHae1016 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026-05-20 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issues: The employee joined the respondent company on January 1, 2024 and worked as a counselor at the KTM Mobile Anyang Center located in Anyang-si, Gyeonggi-do (hereinafter the “Anyang Center”). On February 13, 2026, the employer, citing a report of workplace bullying, reassigned the employee on February 19, 2026 to the KTM Mobile Suwon Center located in Suwon-si (hereinafter the “Suwon Center”), and the employee began working at the Suwon Center on February 23, 2026.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This case concerns an application for remedy for unfair dismissal filed by a call center counselor who, after being reassigned from the Anyang Center to the Suwon Center due to a workplace bullying report, contested the validity of the reassignment and subsequently the dismissal.
The employee applied to the Labor Relations Commission for relief, arguing that the reassignment constituted an unfair reassignment and that the subsequent dismissal likewise constituted an unfair dismissal. The Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the application in Case No. 2026BuHae1016.
Ⅱ. Issues
The issue in this case was whether the reassignment and subsequent dismissal, which were triggered by a workplace bullying report, constituted an abuse of managerial authority amounting to an unfair reassignment and unfair dismissal, or whether they fell within the scope of legitimate exercise of the employer’s personnel authority.
The panel held that, given that a workplace bullying report had been filed, the employer needed to separate the employee and related personnel to prevent further disputes and secondary harm; that, given the nature of call center counseling work, reassignment to another center performing the same or similar work is a typical personnel management measure for which business necessity can be recognized; and that, even after the reassignment, the employee continued to perform the same duties at the Suwon Center and did not suffer any substantial, essential disadvantage in terms of wages or other working conditions.
In light of these circumstances, the panel found that the dismissal in this case could not readily be regarded as unfair, because it was difficult to view the reassignment and subsequent personnel measures as exceeding the reasonable scope of the employer’s personnel authority or as imposing a significant disadvantage on the employee’s livelihood, and it was also difficult to conclude that just cause, as required for disciplinary or redundancy dismissals, was clearly lacking.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The Labor Relations Commission reasoned as follows. First, when workplace bullying is reported, separating the alleged perpetrator and the alleged victim can be viewed as part of fulfilling the employer’s obligations to respond to workplace bullying under the Industrial Safety and Health Act and the Labor Standards Act, and within certain limits, the business necessity of a reassignment can be recognized.
Second, both the Anyang Center and the Suwon Center are KTM Mobile call centers performing the same counseling work, and it was therefore difficult to find that there had been any substantive downgrading of the employee’s job content or status.
Third, although disadvantages such as a longer commuting distance arose due to the reassignment, the degree of such disadvantages did not appear to significantly exceed the level that, under social norms, an employee is ordinarily expected to endure.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, it should be noted that a reassignment or change in placement related to workplace bullying is not always recognized as an unfair reassignment or unfair dismissal.
To successfully challenge a reassignment as unfair, it is important to substantiate, with concrete evidence and facts, that there was insufficient business necessity for the reassignment, that the reassignment was significantly more disadvantageous compared to other employees, and that the disadvantages to the employee’s daily life exceeded the ordinarily acceptable threshold.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, when implementing a reassignment or change in placement following a workplace bullying report, the procedures for investigating the bullying, protecting the victim, and ensuring the alleged perpetrator’s right to defense should be clearly set out in the work rules and personnel regulations and followed transparently.
In addition, employers should keep records of the reasons for the reassignment, the criteria applied, the process of selecting the employee concerned, and the review of changes in commuting distance and working conditions, so that, if appearing before the Labor Relations Commission, they can objectively demonstrate that the exercise of personnel authority was reasonable.
2. Matters Determined
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
The employee joined the respondent company on January 1, 2024 and worked as a counselor at the KTM Mobile Anyang Center located in Anyang-si, Gyeonggi-do (the “Anyang Center”). On February 13, 2026, the employer, citing a report of workplace bullying, reassigned the employee on February 19, 2026 to the KTM Mobile Suwon Center located in Suwon-si (the “Suwon Center”), and the employee began working at the Suwon Center on February 23, 2026. While the employee was contesting the validity of the reassignment by filing an application for remedy for unfair reassignment with the Commission on February 25, 2026, the employer, on February 26, 2026, received from the Labor Office a notice that the applicant had…
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The employee joined the respondent company on January 1, 2024 and worked as a counselor at the KTM Mobile Anyang Center located in Anyang-si, Gyeonggi-do (the “Anyang Center”). On February 13, 2026, the employer, citing a report of workplace bullying, reassigned the employee on February 19, 2026 to the KTM Mobile Suwon Center located in Suwon-si (the “Suwon Center”), and the employee began working at the Suwon Center on February 23, 2026. While the employee was contesting the validity of the reassignment by filing an application for remedy for unfair reassignment with the Commission on February 25, 2026, the employer, on February 26, 2026, received from the Labor Office a notice that the applicant had… /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Scope of Union Activities (Cancellation of Animal Rights Policy Event)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Standing to Sue (Construction Day Labor Platform)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, reassignment due to workplace bullying (call center counselor), workplace bullying, 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 Decisions” series.
※ The previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Scope of Union Activities (Cancellation of Animal Rights Policy Event)’,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to reassignment due to workplace bullying (call center counselor) can be viewed together under “List of Decisions Related to Reassignment Due to Workplace Bullying (Call Center Counselor).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “reassignment due to workplace bullying (call center counselor).”
Decision body: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026BuHae1016 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026-05-20 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issues: The employee joined the respondent company on January 1, 2024 and worked as a counselor at the KTM Mobile Anyang Center located in Anyang-si, Gyeonggi-do (hereinafter the “Anyang Center”). On February 13, 2026, the employer, citing a report of workplace bullying, reassigned the employee on February 19, 2026 to the KTM Mobile Suwon Center located in Suwon-si (hereinafter the “Suwon Center”), and the employee began working at the Suwon Center on February 23, 2026.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This case concerns an application for remedy for unfair dismissal filed by a call center counselor who, after being reassigned from the Anyang Center to the Suwon Center due to a workplace bullying report, contested the validity of the reassignment and subsequently the dismissal.
The employee applied to the Labor Relations Commission for relief, arguing that the reassignment constituted an unfair reassignment and that the subsequent dismissal likewise constituted an unfair dismissal. The Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the application in Case No. 2026BuHae1016.
Ⅱ. Issues
The issue in this case was whether the reassignment and subsequent dismissal, which were triggered by a workplace bullying report, constituted an abuse of managerial authority amounting to an unfair reassignment and unfair dismissal, or whether they fell within the scope of legitimate exercise of the employer’s personnel authority.
The panel held that, given that a workplace bullying report had been filed, the employer needed to separate the employee and related personnel to prevent further disputes and secondary harm; that, given the nature of call center counseling work, reassignment to another center performing the same or similar work is a typical personnel management measure for which business necessity can be recognized; and that, even after the reassignment, the employee continued to perform the same duties at the Suwon Center and did not suffer any substantial, essential disadvantage in terms of wages or other working conditions.
In light of these circumstances, the panel found that the dismissal in this case could not readily be regarded as unfair, because it was difficult to view the reassignment and subsequent personnel measures as exceeding the reasonable scope of the employer’s personnel authority or as imposing a significant disadvantage on the employee’s livelihood, and it was also difficult to conclude that just cause, as required for disciplinary or redundancy dismissals, was clearly lacking.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The Labor Relations Commission reasoned as follows. First, when workplace bullying is reported, separating the alleged perpetrator and the alleged victim can be viewed as part of fulfilling the employer’s obligations to respond to workplace bullying under the Industrial Safety and Health Act and the Labor Standards Act, and within certain limits, the business necessity of a reassignment can be recognized.
Second, both the Anyang Center and the Suwon Center are KTM Mobile call centers performing the same counseling work, and it was therefore difficult to find that there had been any substantive downgrading of the employee’s job content or status.
Third, although disadvantages such as a longer commuting distance arose due to the reassignment, the degree of such disadvantages did not appear to significantly exceed the level that, under social norms, an employee is ordinarily expected to endure.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, it should be noted that a reassignment or change in placement related to workplace bullying is not always recognized as an unfair reassignment or unfair dismissal.
To successfully challenge a reassignment as unfair, it is important to substantiate, with concrete evidence and facts, that there was insufficient business necessity for the reassignment, that the reassignment was significantly more disadvantageous compared to other employees, and that the disadvantages to the employee’s daily life exceeded the ordinarily acceptable threshold.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, when implementing a reassignment or change in placement following a workplace bullying report, the procedures for investigating the bullying, protecting the victim, and ensuring the alleged perpetrator’s right to defense should be clearly set out in the work rules and personnel regulations and followed transparently.
In addition, employers should keep records of the reasons for the reassignment, the criteria applied, the process of selecting the employee concerned, and the review of changes in commuting distance and working conditions, so that, if appearing before the Labor Relations Commission, they can objectively demonstrate that the exercise of personnel authority was reasonable.
2. Matters Determined
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
The employee joined the respondent company on January 1, 2024 and worked as a counselor at the KTM Mobile Anyang Center located in Anyang-si, Gyeonggi-do (the “Anyang Center”). On February 13, 2026, the employer, citing a report of workplace bullying, reassigned the employee on February 19, 2026 to the KTM Mobile Suwon Center located in Suwon-si (the “Suwon Center”), and the employee began working at the Suwon Center on February 23, 2026. While the employee was contesting the validity of the reassignment by filing an application for remedy for unfair reassignment with the Commission on February 25, 2026, the employer, on February 26, 2026, received from the Labor Office a notice that the applicant had…
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The employee joined the respondent company on January 1, 2024 and worked as a counselor at the KTM Mobile Anyang Center located in Anyang-si, Gyeonggi-do (the “Anyang Center”). On February 13, 2026, the employer, citing a report of workplace bullying, reassigned the employee on February 19, 2026 to the KTM Mobile Suwon Center located in Suwon-si (the “Suwon Center”), and the employee began working at the Suwon Center on February 23, 2026. While the employee was contesting the validity of the reassignment by filing an application for remedy for unfair reassignment with the Commission on February 25, 2026, the employer, on February 26, 2026, received from the Labor Office a notice that the applicant had… /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Scope of Union Activities (Cancellation of Animal Rights Policy Event)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Standing to Sue (Construction Day Labor Platform)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, reassignment due to workplace bullying (call center counselor), workplace bullying, 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 Decisions” series.
※ The previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Scope of Union Activities (Cancellation of Animal Rights Policy Event)’,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to reassignment due to workplace bullying (call center counselor) can be viewed together under “List of Decisions Related to Reassignment Due to Workplace Bullying (Call Center Counselor).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
