Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning “Reassignment (Separation from Assault Victim)” (Unfair Dismissal 626)
- Date2026/08/15 04:20
- Read 3
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “reassignment (separation from assault victim).”
Adjudicating Body: Gyeongnam Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae443 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026-07-07 · Case Result: Dismissed
Summary of Key Issues: It was recognized that there was a business necessity to separate the workspaces of the employee and the assault victim and to assign the employee to a process where he would have less face-to-face contact with workers in the melting/injection section. The living disadvantages resulting from the reassignment were not deemed to significantly exceed the level ordinarily to be endured by workers, and it appeared that a certain level of prior consultation had taken place, such as a meeting with Mr. Shin ○○, Head of Production Team 1, before the personnel order was issued. Accordingly, the reassignment was found to be a legitimate exercise of managerial authority.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employee had been working in the same workspace as the victim of an assault incident. The company separated their workspaces and issued a reassignment order transferring the employee to another process where contact with workers in the melting/injection section could be reduced. The employee claimed that this personnel order constituted an unfair reassignment causing living disadvantages and filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission for a remedy for unfair dismissal (unfair personnel action). The Gyeongnam Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the application.
Ⅱ. Issues in Dispute
The issue in this case is whether, where there is a reason such as separation of workspaces from an assault victim and assignment to another process, the reassignment constitutes a legitimate exercise of managerial authority—taking into account business necessity, the employee’s living disadvantages, and prior consultation procedures in their entirety—or whether it is an unfair personnel order tantamount to unfair dismissal.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The panel in this case found that there was a business necessity for the employer to separate the workspaces of the employee and the assault victim and to assign the employee to a process where he would have less face-to-face contact with workers in the melting/injection section; that the living disadvantages resulting from the reassignment could not be regarded as significantly exceeding the level ordinarily to be endured by workers; and that a certain level of prior consultation appeared to have taken place, such as a meeting with Mr. Shin ○○, Head of Production Team 1, before the personnel order was issued.
Accordingly, the Commission held that the dismissal measure in this case was a legitimate personnel order that did not constitute an abuse of managerial authority and therefore did not amount to unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s standpoint, even if a reassignment or change in job placement feels disadvantageous, it should be noted that it is difficult to obtain relief from the Labor Relations Commission if business necessity is recognized and the living disadvantages do not exceed the level “ordinarily to be endured.” In particular, where a reassignment is made for the purpose of separating workspaces due to an assault incident or interpersonal conflict, the company’s need to maintain safety and order may be given significant weight. Accordingly, mere dissatisfaction is unlikely to suffice for a claim of unfair reassignment or unfair dismissal to be upheld.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, when implementing a reassignment or change in job placement, (i) clearly document and substantiate the specific business necessity with facts and records, and (ii) review measures to minimize the employee’s living disadvantages, such as changes in commuting distance, wages, and job duties. In addition, as in this case, if you leave a record showing that at least minimal prior consultation procedures—such as meetings and explanations—were conducted, there is a higher likelihood that the legitimacy of the personnel order will be recognized when the Labor Relations Commission reviews whether there has been an abuse of managerial authority.
Although this decision concerns a personnel reassignment rather than a direct layoff or redundancy, it is a good example of how the Labor Relations Commission balances the three elements of “business necessity – living disadvantages – consultation procedures” when assessing the legitimacy of a personnel order. Both employees and companies should fully understand this legal framework and, in the event of similar disputes, respond strategically with the assistance of experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&.
2. Matters Adjudicated
a. Case Overview and Procedural History
It was recognized that there was a business necessity to separate the workspaces of the employee and the assault victim and to assign the employee to a process where he would have less face-to-face contact with workers in the melting/injection section. The living disadvantages resulting from the reassignment were not deemed to significantly exceed the level ordinarily to be endured by workers, and it appeared that a certain level of prior consultation had taken place, such as a meeting with Mr. Shin ○○, Head of Production Team 1, before the personnel order was issued. Accordingly, the reassignment was found to be a legitimate personnel order.
3. Summary of the Decision
a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
It was recognized that there was a business necessity to separate the workspaces of the employee and the assault victim and to assign the employee to a process where he would have less face-to-face contact with workers in the melting/injection section. The living disadvantages resulting from the reassignment were not deemed to significantly exceed the level ordinarily to be endured by workers, and it appeared that a certain level of prior consultation had taken place, such as a meeting with Mr. Shin ○○, Head of Production Team 1, before the personnel order was issued. Accordingly, the reassignment was found to be a legitimate personnel order. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning ‘Discretion in Monetary Compensation Orders (Receipt of Full Initial Compensation Amount)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning ‘Dismissal of Application (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’” – Decision Date: – Case No.: Dismissed
- “Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning ‘Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’” – Decision Date: – Case No.: Initial Decision Upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, reassignment (separation from assault victim), workplace harassment, 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.
※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning ‘Existence of Dismissal (Conflict Between Co-Representative and Shareholding Demand)’,” in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to reassignment (separation from assault victim) can be viewed together in the “List of Decisions Related to Reassignment (Separation from Assault Victim).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “reassignment (separation from assault victim).”
Adjudicating Body: Gyeongnam Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae443 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026-07-07 · Case Result: Dismissed
Summary of Key Issues: It was recognized that there was a business necessity to separate the workspaces of the employee and the assault victim and to assign the employee to a process where he would have less face-to-face contact with workers in the melting/injection section. The living disadvantages resulting from the reassignment were not deemed to significantly exceed the level ordinarily to be endured by workers, and it appeared that a certain level of prior consultation had taken place, such as a meeting with Mr. Shin ○○, Head of Production Team 1, before the personnel order was issued. Accordingly, the reassignment was found to be a legitimate exercise of managerial authority.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employee had been working in the same workspace as the victim of an assault incident. The company separated their workspaces and issued a reassignment order transferring the employee to another process where contact with workers in the melting/injection section could be reduced. The employee claimed that this personnel order constituted an unfair reassignment causing living disadvantages and filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission for a remedy for unfair dismissal (unfair personnel action). The Gyeongnam Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the application.
Ⅱ. Issues in Dispute
The issue in this case is whether, where there is a reason such as separation of workspaces from an assault victim and assignment to another process, the reassignment constitutes a legitimate exercise of managerial authority—taking into account business necessity, the employee’s living disadvantages, and prior consultation procedures in their entirety—or whether it is an unfair personnel order tantamount to unfair dismissal.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The panel in this case found that there was a business necessity for the employer to separate the workspaces of the employee and the assault victim and to assign the employee to a process where he would have less face-to-face contact with workers in the melting/injection section; that the living disadvantages resulting from the reassignment could not be regarded as significantly exceeding the level ordinarily to be endured by workers; and that a certain level of prior consultation appeared to have taken place, such as a meeting with Mr. Shin ○○, Head of Production Team 1, before the personnel order was issued.
Accordingly, the Commission held that the dismissal measure in this case was a legitimate personnel order that did not constitute an abuse of managerial authority and therefore did not amount to unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s standpoint, even if a reassignment or change in job placement feels disadvantageous, it should be noted that it is difficult to obtain relief from the Labor Relations Commission if business necessity is recognized and the living disadvantages do not exceed the level “ordinarily to be endured.” In particular, where a reassignment is made for the purpose of separating workspaces due to an assault incident or interpersonal conflict, the company’s need to maintain safety and order may be given significant weight. Accordingly, mere dissatisfaction is unlikely to suffice for a claim of unfair reassignment or unfair dismissal to be upheld.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, when implementing a reassignment or change in job placement, (i) clearly document and substantiate the specific business necessity with facts and records, and (ii) review measures to minimize the employee’s living disadvantages, such as changes in commuting distance, wages, and job duties. In addition, as in this case, if you leave a record showing that at least minimal prior consultation procedures—such as meetings and explanations—were conducted, there is a higher likelihood that the legitimacy of the personnel order will be recognized when the Labor Relations Commission reviews whether there has been an abuse of managerial authority.
Although this decision concerns a personnel reassignment rather than a direct layoff or redundancy, it is a good example of how the Labor Relations Commission balances the three elements of “business necessity – living disadvantages – consultation procedures” when assessing the legitimacy of a personnel order. Both employees and companies should fully understand this legal framework and, in the event of similar disputes, respond strategically with the assistance of experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&.
2. Matters Adjudicated
a. Case Overview and Procedural History
It was recognized that there was a business necessity to separate the workspaces of the employee and the assault victim and to assign the employee to a process where he would have less face-to-face contact with workers in the melting/injection section. The living disadvantages resulting from the reassignment were not deemed to significantly exceed the level ordinarily to be endured by workers, and it appeared that a certain level of prior consultation had taken place, such as a meeting with Mr. Shin ○○, Head of Production Team 1, before the personnel order was issued. Accordingly, the reassignment was found to be a legitimate personnel order.
3. Summary of the Decision
a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
It was recognized that there was a business necessity to separate the workspaces of the employee and the assault victim and to assign the employee to a process where he would have less face-to-face contact with workers in the melting/injection section. The living disadvantages resulting from the reassignment were not deemed to significantly exceed the level ordinarily to be endured by workers, and it appeared that a certain level of prior consultation had taken place, such as a meeting with Mr. Shin ○○, Head of Production Team 1, before the personnel order was issued. Accordingly, the reassignment was found to be a legitimate personnel order. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning ‘Discretion in Monetary Compensation Orders (Receipt of Full Initial Compensation Amount)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning ‘Dismissal of Application (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’” – Decision Date: – Case No.: Dismissed
- “Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning ‘Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’” – Decision Date: – Case No.: Initial Decision Upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, reassignment (separation from assault victim), workplace harassment, 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.
※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning ‘Existence of Dismissal (Conflict Between Co-Representative and Shareholding Demand)’,” in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to reassignment (separation from assault victim) can be viewed together in the “List of Decisions Related to Reassignment (Separation from Assault Victim).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
