Corporate trends / Performance record
‘Business Necessity (Transfer of Executive in Charge of Purchasing)’ Unfair Dismissal and Transfer Decision (Unfair Dismissal 610)
- Date2026/08/09 04:18
- Read 3
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “business necessity (transfer of executive in charge of purchasing).”
Decision Body: Ulsan Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae188 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026-07-15 · Case Result: Dismissed
Summary of Key Issues: In this case, the employee applied for a remedy, claiming that the employer’s transfer measure constituted an unfair transfer, and sought reinstatement to the original position.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employer issued a transfer order to an employee who had been serving as the executive in charge of purchasing. The employee regarded this as an unfair transfer and filed an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission. The employee argued that the transfer amounted to a disciplinary personnel measure and caused serious disadvantages in terms of livelihood and career, and therefore filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal (unfair transfer), seeking reinstatement to the original position.
Based on the submitted materials and the results of the hearing, the Labor Relations Commission examined the legitimacy of the personnel action, focusing in particular on the business necessity of the transfer, the degree of disadvantage in the employee’s livelihood, and whether the consultation procedures had been observed.
Labor Law Firm Law& seeks, through this decision, to once again整理 the legal principles that are repeatedly contested in similar cases involving transfers and redundancies.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether the transfer measure imposed on the executive in charge of purchasing satisfies the requirements of business necessity and procedure so that it can be viewed as a legitimate exercise of managerial prerogative, or whether it constitutes an unfair transfer lacking just cause under Article 23 of the Labor Standards Act (a disadvantageous personnel measure equivalent to unfair dismissal).
Ⅲ. Gist of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The panel in this case held that, although an employer, as the holder of managerial prerogative, has considerable discretion with respect to transfers and reassignments, the legitimacy of such measures must be determined comprehensively in light of:
① whether there exists an objective business necessity, such as manpower redistribution;
② whether the disadvantages arising from the transfer in terms of wages, duties, and career development significantly exceed the level that an ordinary employee can be expected to endure; and
③ the extent to which procedures required under the principle of good faith—such as consultation with the employee during the transfer process—have been observed.
The applicant, who had been serving as the executive in charge of purchasing, had performed his duties without any serious misconduct such as violation of the code of ethics; the organizational restructuring and work-efficiency needs asserted by the company lacked a reasonable nexus to the specific employee selected for transfer; following the transfer, the substance and status of the position were downgraded to a level close to demotion, creating what appeared to be serious disadvantages in terms of career and livelihood; and prior consultation or explanation before the transfer was insufficient, making it difficult to find that the employer had fulfilled its duty to consult under the principle of good faith.
In light of the above, the Commission held that the dismissal disposition in this case was unfair.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, when a transfer or change in position occurs, it is first necessary to distinguish whether it is a simple change of workplace, or whether it is in fact a de facto demotion or disciplinary personnel measure that has a serious adverse impact on duties, position, and career. If the business necessity of the transfer is unclear, the disadvantage to livelihood is substantial, and there was little to no prior consultation or explanation, you should consult with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law& as to whether there is room to challenge the measure as an unfair transfer (a type of application for remedy for unfair dismissal) before the Labor Relations Commission.
In addition, if you secure at the time of the transfer notice any emails, personnel appointment notices, performance evaluation records, and documents showing organizational changes, these can serve as important evidence to prove the disciplinary nature and degree of disadvantage of the transfer, as well as the fictitious nature of the alleged business necessity.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, even though transfers and reassignments in principle fall within the scope of managerial prerogative, you must be mindful that, where the duties and rank stipulated in the employment contract are substantially downgraded, the measure may have effects similar to demotion or discipline. You should prepare in advance internal documents and personnel standards so that the necessity of the transfer can be explained with objective materials such as manpower allocation, organizational restructuring, work efficiency, and maintenance of workplace order.
It is also important to establish reasonable criteria for selecting employees subject to transfer and to keep records showing that sufficient explanations and consultations were conducted before and after the transfer. If such procedural legitimacy is not ensured, there is a high risk that, even where the company has certain business needs, the Labor Relations Commission will find the measure to be an unfair transfer constituting an abuse of rights.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
In this case, the employee applied for a remedy, asserting that the transfer measure taken by the employer against the employee constituted an unfair transfer, and sought reinstatement to the original position. The principal issue for decision in this case is the legitimacy of the personnel appointment, specifically: whether there was business necessity, the degree of disadvantage to the employee’s livelihood, and whether the consultation procedures required under the principle of good faith were observed. Upon conducting a hearing on this application for remedy, together with the submitted materials and the results of the investigation, the following determination was made.
First, with respect to whether there was business necessity, the applicant had been serving as the executive in charge of purchasing without having violated the code of ethics, and the main tasks involved improvement of logistics and operational processes...
3. Gist of the Decision
A. Gist of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
In this case, the employee applied for a remedy, asserting that the transfer measure taken by the employer against the employee constituted an unfair transfer, and sought reinstatement to the original position. The principal issue for decision in this case is the legitimacy of the personnel appointment, specifically: whether there was business necessity, the degree of disadvantage to the employee’s livelihood, and whether the consultation procedures required under the principle of good faith were observed. Upon conducting a hearing on this application for remedy, together with the submitted materials and the results of the investigation, the following determination was made.
First, with respect to whether there was business necessity, the applicant had been serving as the executive in charge of purchasing without having violated the code of ethics, and the main tasks involved improvement of logistics and operational processes...
[See More Related Decisions]
- ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision
- ‘No Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision – Decision Date: – Case Result: First-Instance Decision Upheld
- ‘Defect in Written Notice (Probationary Period · Refusal of Regular Employment)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, Business necessity (transfer of executive in charge of purchasing), Personnel appointment · 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 one of Labor Law Firm Law&’s “Unfair Dismissal Decision” series.
※ You can view the previous article, “‘Failure to Prove Probationary Evaluation (Refusal of Regular Employment)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to business necessity (transfer of executive in charge of purchasing) can be viewed together on the “List of Decisions on Business Necessity (Transfer of Executive in Charge of Purchasing).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “business necessity (transfer of executive in charge of purchasing).”
Decision Body: Ulsan Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae188 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026-07-15 · Case Result: Dismissed
Summary of Key Issues: In this case, the employee applied for a remedy, claiming that the employer’s transfer measure constituted an unfair transfer, and sought reinstatement to the original position.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employer issued a transfer order to an employee who had been serving as the executive in charge of purchasing. The employee regarded this as an unfair transfer and filed an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission. The employee argued that the transfer amounted to a disciplinary personnel measure and caused serious disadvantages in terms of livelihood and career, and therefore filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal (unfair transfer), seeking reinstatement to the original position.
Based on the submitted materials and the results of the hearing, the Labor Relations Commission examined the legitimacy of the personnel action, focusing in particular on the business necessity of the transfer, the degree of disadvantage in the employee’s livelihood, and whether the consultation procedures had been observed.
Labor Law Firm Law& seeks, through this decision, to once again整理 the legal principles that are repeatedly contested in similar cases involving transfers and redundancies.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether the transfer measure imposed on the executive in charge of purchasing satisfies the requirements of business necessity and procedure so that it can be viewed as a legitimate exercise of managerial prerogative, or whether it constitutes an unfair transfer lacking just cause under Article 23 of the Labor Standards Act (a disadvantageous personnel measure equivalent to unfair dismissal).
Ⅲ. Gist of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The panel in this case held that, although an employer, as the holder of managerial prerogative, has considerable discretion with respect to transfers and reassignments, the legitimacy of such measures must be determined comprehensively in light of:
① whether there exists an objective business necessity, such as manpower redistribution;
② whether the disadvantages arising from the transfer in terms of wages, duties, and career development significantly exceed the level that an ordinary employee can be expected to endure; and
③ the extent to which procedures required under the principle of good faith—such as consultation with the employee during the transfer process—have been observed.
The applicant, who had been serving as the executive in charge of purchasing, had performed his duties without any serious misconduct such as violation of the code of ethics; the organizational restructuring and work-efficiency needs asserted by the company lacked a reasonable nexus to the specific employee selected for transfer; following the transfer, the substance and status of the position were downgraded to a level close to demotion, creating what appeared to be serious disadvantages in terms of career and livelihood; and prior consultation or explanation before the transfer was insufficient, making it difficult to find that the employer had fulfilled its duty to consult under the principle of good faith.
In light of the above, the Commission held that the dismissal disposition in this case was unfair.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, when a transfer or change in position occurs, it is first necessary to distinguish whether it is a simple change of workplace, or whether it is in fact a de facto demotion or disciplinary personnel measure that has a serious adverse impact on duties, position, and career. If the business necessity of the transfer is unclear, the disadvantage to livelihood is substantial, and there was little to no prior consultation or explanation, you should consult with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law& as to whether there is room to challenge the measure as an unfair transfer (a type of application for remedy for unfair dismissal) before the Labor Relations Commission.
In addition, if you secure at the time of the transfer notice any emails, personnel appointment notices, performance evaluation records, and documents showing organizational changes, these can serve as important evidence to prove the disciplinary nature and degree of disadvantage of the transfer, as well as the fictitious nature of the alleged business necessity.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, even though transfers and reassignments in principle fall within the scope of managerial prerogative, you must be mindful that, where the duties and rank stipulated in the employment contract are substantially downgraded, the measure may have effects similar to demotion or discipline. You should prepare in advance internal documents and personnel standards so that the necessity of the transfer can be explained with objective materials such as manpower allocation, organizational restructuring, work efficiency, and maintenance of workplace order.
It is also important to establish reasonable criteria for selecting employees subject to transfer and to keep records showing that sufficient explanations and consultations were conducted before and after the transfer. If such procedural legitimacy is not ensured, there is a high risk that, even where the company has certain business needs, the Labor Relations Commission will find the measure to be an unfair transfer constituting an abuse of rights.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
In this case, the employee applied for a remedy, asserting that the transfer measure taken by the employer against the employee constituted an unfair transfer, and sought reinstatement to the original position. The principal issue for decision in this case is the legitimacy of the personnel appointment, specifically: whether there was business necessity, the degree of disadvantage to the employee’s livelihood, and whether the consultation procedures required under the principle of good faith were observed. Upon conducting a hearing on this application for remedy, together with the submitted materials and the results of the investigation, the following determination was made.
First, with respect to whether there was business necessity, the applicant had been serving as the executive in charge of purchasing without having violated the code of ethics, and the main tasks involved improvement of logistics and operational processes...
3. Gist of the Decision
A. Gist of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
In this case, the employee applied for a remedy, asserting that the transfer measure taken by the employer against the employee constituted an unfair transfer, and sought reinstatement to the original position. The principal issue for decision in this case is the legitimacy of the personnel appointment, specifically: whether there was business necessity, the degree of disadvantage to the employee’s livelihood, and whether the consultation procedures required under the principle of good faith were observed. Upon conducting a hearing on this application for remedy, together with the submitted materials and the results of the investigation, the following determination was made.
First, with respect to whether there was business necessity, the applicant had been serving as the executive in charge of purchasing without having violated the code of ethics, and the main tasks involved improvement of logistics and operational processes...
[See More Related Decisions]
- ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision
- ‘No Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision – Decision Date: – Case Result: First-Instance Decision Upheld
- ‘Defect in Written Notice (Probationary Period · Refusal of Regular Employment)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, Business necessity (transfer of executive in charge of purchasing), Personnel appointment · 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 one of Labor Law Firm Law&’s “Unfair Dismissal Decision” series.
※ You can view the previous article, “‘Failure to Prove Probationary Evaluation (Refusal of Regular Employment)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to business necessity (transfer of executive in charge of purchasing) can be viewed together on the “List of Decisions on Business Necessity (Transfer of Executive in Charge of Purchasing).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
