Corporate trends / Performance record
“Justifiability of Transfer (Transfer from Meat Corner)” – Unfair Dismissal Relief Decision (Unfair Dismissal 612)
- Date2026/08/10 04:12
- Read 3
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “justifiability of transfer (transfer from meat corner).”
Adjudicating body: Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission, 2026Buhae227 ○ ○ ○ Application for Relief from Unfair Dismissal
2026-07-13 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issue:
A. Existence of business necessity
For a worker whose scope of work was not contractually limited, the employer implemented a transfer pursuant to its personnel regulations in order to prevent accidents that may arise from an employee working in the same position for an extended period and to maintain a minimum level of workplace order. Accordingly, business necessity for the transfer was recognized.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, an employee in charge of meat processing duties received a transfer order to another department. The employee filed an application for relief with the Labor Relations Commission, asserting that this transfer constituted an unfair personnel measure equivalent to unfair dismissal.
The Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission focused on whether the employer’s transfer order fell within the scope of a legitimate exercise of managerial prerogative under the Labor Standards Act. Ultimately, it dismissed the employee’s application and ruled in favor of the employer.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is:
“Whether, in respect of an employee whose work duties are not limited to a specific job (meat processing), the employer’s transfer of the employee from the meat corner to another department pursuant to its personnel regulations constitutes a legitimate transfer supported by business necessity, where the disadvantages in the employee’s living conditions do not exceed the level that must ordinarily be borne.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case noted that the employer implemented the transfer pursuant to its personnel regulations out of a need to prevent accidents that may arise when an employee works in the same position for a long period and to maintain a minimum level of workplace order; that under the employment contract the employee’s scope of work was not limited to meat processing; and that there was no change in wages after the transfer and the increase in commuting time was only about 15 minutes.
In light of these circumstances, the panel found it difficult to conclude that the mere fact that the employee no longer performed meat processing duties resulted in serious disadvantages such as damage to professional identity or a break in career continuity, or that the disadvantages in living conditions caused by the transfer significantly exceeded the level that an employee must ordinarily bear.
Taking all of the above into account, the panel held that the transfer in this case was supported by business necessity and did not impose excessive disadvantages in living conditions, and therefore could not be deemed to violate Article 23(1) of the Labor Standards Act or constitute an abuse of rights.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Employees should first check to what extent “scope of work, duties, and workplace” are limited in their employment contract, rules of employment, and personnel regulations. If a transfer does not reduce wages and any increase in commuting time or change in duties remains within a level that can ordinarily be tolerated, you should be aware that labor commissions and courts are likely to regard it as a legitimate exercise of managerial prerogative.
However, if a transfer results in significantly greater disadvantages in living conditions—such as long-distance commuting, a substantial increase in workload, or loss of professional expertise—and there are indications that a particular employee is being singled out for retaliatory measures, then it is necessary to actively contest the transfer’s legitimacy, focusing on the existence of business necessity and the reasonableness of the selection of the transferee.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, to prevent transfers or reassignments from escalating into unfair dismissal disputes, first, clearly stipulate in the personnel regulations and rules of employment that duties and workplaces may be changed, together with the relevant criteria. Second, to be able to objectively explain the reasons for the transfer, it is important to document business necessity—such as accident prevention, maintenance of workplace order, and the need for personnel reallocation—through internal documents and personnel records.
In addition, it should be possible to prove that reasonable criteria were applied in selecting the employee to be transferred, and that adjustments were made so that excessive disadvantages in terms of wages, benefits, and commuting conditions would not arise. This will make it easier to have the transfer recognized as a legitimate exercise of managerial prerogative by the Labor Relations Commission. When establishing such standards and procedures in advance, it is advisable to review risks with the advice of a specialized organization such as Labor Law Firm Law&.
2. Matters Adjudicated
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Existence of business necessity
For a worker whose scope of work was not contractually limited, the employer implemented a transfer pursuant to its personnel regulations in order to prevent accidents that may arise from an employee working in the same position for an extended period and to maintain a minimum level of workplace order. Accordingly, business necessity for the transfer was recognized.
B. Existence of disadvantages in living conditions
It is difficult to recognize that the employee suffered disadvantages such as damage to professional identity or a break in career continuity solely because the employee no longer performed meat processing duties. The increase in the employee’s commuting time was only about 15 minutes, and there was no change in wages before and after the transfer in this case. Thus, the disadvantages in living conditions were not significant …
3. Summary of Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Existence of business necessity
For a worker whose scope of work was not contractually limited, the employer implemented a transfer pursuant to its personnel regulations in order to prevent accidents that may arise from an employee working in the same position for an extended period and to maintain a minimum level of workplace order. Accordingly, business necessity for the transfer was recognized.
B. Existence of disadvantages in living conditions
It is difficult to recognize that the employee suffered disadvantages such as damage to professional identity or a break in career continuity solely because the employee no longer performed meat processing duties. The increase in the employee’s commuting time was only about 15 minutes, and there was no change in wages before and after the transfer in this case. Thus, the disadvantages in living conditions were not significant … /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “‘Dismissal of Application (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’ – Unfair Dismissal Relief Decision” – Date of decision: – Case result: Dismissed
- “‘Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ – Unfair Dismissal Relief Decision” – Date of decision: – Case result: First-instance decision upheld
- “‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ – Unfair Dismissal Relief Decision”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, justifiability of transfer (transfer from meat corner), 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 part of the “Unfair Dismissal Relief Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ You can view the previous article, “‘Scope of Legal Application (Fewer than Five Regular Employees)’ – Unfair Dismissal Relief Decision,” in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to justifiability of transfer (transfer from meat corner) can be viewed together at “List of Decisions Related to Justifiability of Transfer (Transfer from Meat Corner).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “justifiability of transfer (transfer from meat corner).”
Adjudicating body: Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission, 2026Buhae227 ○ ○ ○ Application for Relief from Unfair Dismissal
2026-07-13 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issue:
A. Existence of business necessity
For a worker whose scope of work was not contractually limited, the employer implemented a transfer pursuant to its personnel regulations in order to prevent accidents that may arise from an employee working in the same position for an extended period and to maintain a minimum level of workplace order. Accordingly, business necessity for the transfer was recognized.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, an employee in charge of meat processing duties received a transfer order to another department. The employee filed an application for relief with the Labor Relations Commission, asserting that this transfer constituted an unfair personnel measure equivalent to unfair dismissal.
The Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission focused on whether the employer’s transfer order fell within the scope of a legitimate exercise of managerial prerogative under the Labor Standards Act. Ultimately, it dismissed the employee’s application and ruled in favor of the employer.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is:
“Whether, in respect of an employee whose work duties are not limited to a specific job (meat processing), the employer’s transfer of the employee from the meat corner to another department pursuant to its personnel regulations constitutes a legitimate transfer supported by business necessity, where the disadvantages in the employee’s living conditions do not exceed the level that must ordinarily be borne.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case noted that the employer implemented the transfer pursuant to its personnel regulations out of a need to prevent accidents that may arise when an employee works in the same position for a long period and to maintain a minimum level of workplace order; that under the employment contract the employee’s scope of work was not limited to meat processing; and that there was no change in wages after the transfer and the increase in commuting time was only about 15 minutes.
In light of these circumstances, the panel found it difficult to conclude that the mere fact that the employee no longer performed meat processing duties resulted in serious disadvantages such as damage to professional identity or a break in career continuity, or that the disadvantages in living conditions caused by the transfer significantly exceeded the level that an employee must ordinarily bear.
Taking all of the above into account, the panel held that the transfer in this case was supported by business necessity and did not impose excessive disadvantages in living conditions, and therefore could not be deemed to violate Article 23(1) of the Labor Standards Act or constitute an abuse of rights.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Employees should first check to what extent “scope of work, duties, and workplace” are limited in their employment contract, rules of employment, and personnel regulations. If a transfer does not reduce wages and any increase in commuting time or change in duties remains within a level that can ordinarily be tolerated, you should be aware that labor commissions and courts are likely to regard it as a legitimate exercise of managerial prerogative.
However, if a transfer results in significantly greater disadvantages in living conditions—such as long-distance commuting, a substantial increase in workload, or loss of professional expertise—and there are indications that a particular employee is being singled out for retaliatory measures, then it is necessary to actively contest the transfer’s legitimacy, focusing on the existence of business necessity and the reasonableness of the selection of the transferee.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, to prevent transfers or reassignments from escalating into unfair dismissal disputes, first, clearly stipulate in the personnel regulations and rules of employment that duties and workplaces may be changed, together with the relevant criteria. Second, to be able to objectively explain the reasons for the transfer, it is important to document business necessity—such as accident prevention, maintenance of workplace order, and the need for personnel reallocation—through internal documents and personnel records.
In addition, it should be possible to prove that reasonable criteria were applied in selecting the employee to be transferred, and that adjustments were made so that excessive disadvantages in terms of wages, benefits, and commuting conditions would not arise. This will make it easier to have the transfer recognized as a legitimate exercise of managerial prerogative by the Labor Relations Commission. When establishing such standards and procedures in advance, it is advisable to review risks with the advice of a specialized organization such as Labor Law Firm Law&.
2. Matters Adjudicated
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Existence of business necessity
For a worker whose scope of work was not contractually limited, the employer implemented a transfer pursuant to its personnel regulations in order to prevent accidents that may arise from an employee working in the same position for an extended period and to maintain a minimum level of workplace order. Accordingly, business necessity for the transfer was recognized.
B. Existence of disadvantages in living conditions
It is difficult to recognize that the employee suffered disadvantages such as damage to professional identity or a break in career continuity solely because the employee no longer performed meat processing duties. The increase in the employee’s commuting time was only about 15 minutes, and there was no change in wages before and after the transfer in this case. Thus, the disadvantages in living conditions were not significant …
3. Summary of Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Existence of business necessity
For a worker whose scope of work was not contractually limited, the employer implemented a transfer pursuant to its personnel regulations in order to prevent accidents that may arise from an employee working in the same position for an extended period and to maintain a minimum level of workplace order. Accordingly, business necessity for the transfer was recognized.
B. Existence of disadvantages in living conditions
It is difficult to recognize that the employee suffered disadvantages such as damage to professional identity or a break in career continuity solely because the employee no longer performed meat processing duties. The increase in the employee’s commuting time was only about 15 minutes, and there was no change in wages before and after the transfer in this case. Thus, the disadvantages in living conditions were not significant … /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “‘Dismissal of Application (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’ – Unfair Dismissal Relief Decision” – Date of decision: – Case result: Dismissed
- “‘Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ – Unfair Dismissal Relief Decision” – Date of decision: – Case result: First-instance decision upheld
- “‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ – Unfair Dismissal Relief Decision”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, justifiability of transfer (transfer from meat corner), 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 part of the “Unfair Dismissal Relief Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ You can view the previous article, “‘Scope of Legal Application (Fewer than Five Regular Employees)’ – Unfair Dismissal Relief Decision,” in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to justifiability of transfer (transfer from meat corner) can be viewed together at “List of Decisions Related to Justifiability of Transfer (Transfer from Meat Corner).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
