Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Case on “Necessity of Transfer (Night Parking → Daytime Work)” (Unfair Dismissal 607)
- Date2026/08/08 04:14
- Read 8
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “necessity of transfer (night parking → daytime work).”
Adjudicating body: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae1685 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026-07-16 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issues: a.
1. Legal Implications
This post introduces a case concerning a transfer (job reassignment) order that was disputed before the Labor Relations Commission in connection with an unfair dismissal dispute, and organizes the Commission’s criteria and practical implications. In particular, it examines, together with the practical experience of Labor Law Firm Law&, how the Commission weighed the business necessity of the transfer against the employee’s disadvantages in daily life.
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employer ordered an employee who had been working night parking shifts to transfer to daytime work (change of workplace and duties). The employee claimed that this constituted an unfair personnel measure equivalent to unfair dismissal and filed an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission. The Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission conducted a hearing under case number 2026Buhae1685, and, with the legitimacy of the transfer order as the main issue, rendered a dismissal decision in favor of the employer.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case was whether, in a situation where the employment contract and work rules contained a legal basis for transfer, and where there were circumstances such as decreased demand for night parking staff and increased demand for daytime staff, the order transferring a specific employee was a legitimate exercise of managerial prerogative from the perspective of (i) business necessity and (ii) disadvantages in daily life, or whether it constituted an abuse of managerial prerogative equivalent to unfair dismissal.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The panel in this case found that: the employment contract and work rules executed by the employer contained provisions authorizing changes to workplace and duties; objective circumstances at the worksite showed that demand for night parking workers had in fact decreased while demand for daytime workers had increased; and using performance evaluation results as the criterion for selecting the employee subject to transfer could not easily be deemed irrational. In light of these points, the panel held that the business necessity of the transfer order was established.
In addition, the panel noted that the employee’s wages did not decrease after the transfer and that working hours were in fact reduced; that although the working hours changed from night to day, it was difficult to find that the work intensity had significantly increased; and that there were no circumstances indicating that the disadvantages in daily life exceeded, to a remarkable degree, the range ordinarily to be borne by employees. Taking these factors together, the panel concluded that the transfer disposition was a legitimate personnel measure that did not constitute an abuse of rights.
As the transfer order itself was recognized as a legitimate exercise of managerial prerogative, the panel found the dismissal in this case to be not unfair on the ground that the application for remedy for unfair dismissal and unfair personnel action filed to contest the transfer order could not be upheld.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Employees should understand that a transfer or reassignment does not automatically amount to unfair dismissal, and that the courts and Labor Relations Commission comprehensively consider (i) business necessity, (ii) the degree of disadvantage in daily life, and (iii) procedural fairness. In particular, where wages are maintained and the disadvantages arising from changes in working hours or work patterns are not substantial, it is difficult to have the unfairness of a transfer recognized merely on the basis that “the original work was more comfortable.”
Therefore, if you wish to contest whether a transfer rises to the level of being unfair, it is important to systematically prepare materials showing what specific economic, psychological, and physical disadvantages have arisen, and whether difficulties in commuting, deterioration of health, or loss of special benefits previously enjoyed exceed the range ordinarily to be borne.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, as in this decision, the key is to secure in advance objective evidence that can substantiate the business necessity of the transfer. Together with data on changes in manpower needs, workload statistics, and organizational restructuring plans, you should document that the criteria used to select the employee subject to transfer (performance evaluation results, performance, job suitability, etc.) are reasonable and non-discriminatory.
In addition, to minimize disadvantages in daily life resulting from the transfer, it is advisable to maintain wage levels and consider supplementary measures to reduce the burden arising from changes in working hours or work patterns. Evidence of such measures can serve as important grounds for having the legitimacy of the transfer recognized by the Labor Relations Commission or the courts.
2. Matters Adjudicated
a. Case Overview and Procedural History
a. Whether there was business necessity
① There was a basis for changing workplace and duties in the employment contract and work rules executed between the parties;
② It was confirmed that demand for night parking workers at the worksite had decreased and that there was additional demand for daytime workers;
③ It did not appear unreasonable that the employer selected the employee subject to transfer based on performance evaluation results.
In light of these points, the business necessity of the transfer could be recognized.
b. Degree of disadvantage in daily life
① There was no change in wages due to the transfer, and working hours were in fact reduced;
② Although working hours changed from night to day, it was not sufficient to find that the work intensity had particularly increased; …
3. Summary of Decision
a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
a. Whether there was business necessity
① There was a basis for changing workplace and duties in the employment contract and work rules executed between the parties;
② It was confirmed that demand for night parking workers at the worksite had decreased and that there was additional demand for daytime workers;
③ It did not appear unreasonable that the employer selected the employee subject to transfer based on performance evaluation results.
In light of these points, the business necessity of the transfer could be recognized.
b. Degree of disadvantage in daily life
① There was no change in wages due to the transfer, and working hours were in fact reduced;
② Although working hours changed from night to day, it was not sufficient to find that the work intensity had particularly increased; … /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “‘Mutual Termination (Handwritten Agreement)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
- “‘Non-Formation of Hiring Decision (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Date of decision: – Case number: First-instance decision upheld
- “‘Obligation of Written Notice (Refusal to Renew Fixed-Term Contract)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, necessity of transfer (night parking → daytime work), transfer/job reassignment, Labor Law Firm Law&, large labor law firm, Samseong-dong labor law firm, Samseong Station labor law firm, Gangnam labor law firm
※ This post is part of the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ The previous post, “‘Obligation of Written Notice (Refusal to Renew Fixed-Term Contract)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to necessity of transfer (night parking → daytime work) can be found under “List of Decisions Related to Necessity of Transfer (Night Parking → Daytime Work).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “necessity of transfer (night parking → daytime work).”
Adjudicating body: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae1685 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026-07-16 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issues: a.
1. Legal Implications
This post introduces a case concerning a transfer (job reassignment) order that was disputed before the Labor Relations Commission in connection with an unfair dismissal dispute, and organizes the Commission’s criteria and practical implications. In particular, it examines, together with the practical experience of Labor Law Firm Law&, how the Commission weighed the business necessity of the transfer against the employee’s disadvantages in daily life.
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employer ordered an employee who had been working night parking shifts to transfer to daytime work (change of workplace and duties). The employee claimed that this constituted an unfair personnel measure equivalent to unfair dismissal and filed an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission. The Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission conducted a hearing under case number 2026Buhae1685, and, with the legitimacy of the transfer order as the main issue, rendered a dismissal decision in favor of the employer.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case was whether, in a situation where the employment contract and work rules contained a legal basis for transfer, and where there were circumstances such as decreased demand for night parking staff and increased demand for daytime staff, the order transferring a specific employee was a legitimate exercise of managerial prerogative from the perspective of (i) business necessity and (ii) disadvantages in daily life, or whether it constituted an abuse of managerial prerogative equivalent to unfair dismissal.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The panel in this case found that: the employment contract and work rules executed by the employer contained provisions authorizing changes to workplace and duties; objective circumstances at the worksite showed that demand for night parking workers had in fact decreased while demand for daytime workers had increased; and using performance evaluation results as the criterion for selecting the employee subject to transfer could not easily be deemed irrational. In light of these points, the panel held that the business necessity of the transfer order was established.
In addition, the panel noted that the employee’s wages did not decrease after the transfer and that working hours were in fact reduced; that although the working hours changed from night to day, it was difficult to find that the work intensity had significantly increased; and that there were no circumstances indicating that the disadvantages in daily life exceeded, to a remarkable degree, the range ordinarily to be borne by employees. Taking these factors together, the panel concluded that the transfer disposition was a legitimate personnel measure that did not constitute an abuse of rights.
As the transfer order itself was recognized as a legitimate exercise of managerial prerogative, the panel found the dismissal in this case to be not unfair on the ground that the application for remedy for unfair dismissal and unfair personnel action filed to contest the transfer order could not be upheld.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Employees should understand that a transfer or reassignment does not automatically amount to unfair dismissal, and that the courts and Labor Relations Commission comprehensively consider (i) business necessity, (ii) the degree of disadvantage in daily life, and (iii) procedural fairness. In particular, where wages are maintained and the disadvantages arising from changes in working hours or work patterns are not substantial, it is difficult to have the unfairness of a transfer recognized merely on the basis that “the original work was more comfortable.”
Therefore, if you wish to contest whether a transfer rises to the level of being unfair, it is important to systematically prepare materials showing what specific economic, psychological, and physical disadvantages have arisen, and whether difficulties in commuting, deterioration of health, or loss of special benefits previously enjoyed exceed the range ordinarily to be borne.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, as in this decision, the key is to secure in advance objective evidence that can substantiate the business necessity of the transfer. Together with data on changes in manpower needs, workload statistics, and organizational restructuring plans, you should document that the criteria used to select the employee subject to transfer (performance evaluation results, performance, job suitability, etc.) are reasonable and non-discriminatory.
In addition, to minimize disadvantages in daily life resulting from the transfer, it is advisable to maintain wage levels and consider supplementary measures to reduce the burden arising from changes in working hours or work patterns. Evidence of such measures can serve as important grounds for having the legitimacy of the transfer recognized by the Labor Relations Commission or the courts.
2. Matters Adjudicated
a. Case Overview and Procedural History
a. Whether there was business necessity
① There was a basis for changing workplace and duties in the employment contract and work rules executed between the parties;
② It was confirmed that demand for night parking workers at the worksite had decreased and that there was additional demand for daytime workers;
③ It did not appear unreasonable that the employer selected the employee subject to transfer based on performance evaluation results.
In light of these points, the business necessity of the transfer could be recognized.
b. Degree of disadvantage in daily life
① There was no change in wages due to the transfer, and working hours were in fact reduced;
② Although working hours changed from night to day, it was not sufficient to find that the work intensity had particularly increased; …
3. Summary of Decision
a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
a. Whether there was business necessity
① There was a basis for changing workplace and duties in the employment contract and work rules executed between the parties;
② It was confirmed that demand for night parking workers at the worksite had decreased and that there was additional demand for daytime workers;
③ It did not appear unreasonable that the employer selected the employee subject to transfer based on performance evaluation results.
In light of these points, the business necessity of the transfer could be recognized.
b. Degree of disadvantage in daily life
① There was no change in wages due to the transfer, and working hours were in fact reduced;
② Although working hours changed from night to day, it was not sufficient to find that the work intensity had particularly increased; … /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “‘Mutual Termination (Handwritten Agreement)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
- “‘Non-Formation of Hiring Decision (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Date of decision: – Case number: First-instance decision upheld
- “‘Obligation of Written Notice (Refusal to Renew Fixed-Term Contract)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, necessity of transfer (night parking → daytime work), transfer/job reassignment, Labor Law Firm Law&, large labor law firm, Samseong-dong labor law firm, Samseong Station labor law firm, Gangnam labor law firm
※ This post is part of the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ The previous post, “‘Obligation of Written Notice (Refusal to Renew Fixed-Term Contract)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to necessity of transfer (night parking → daytime work) can be found under “List of Decisions Related to Necessity of Transfer (Night Parking → Daytime Work).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
