[Case Information] This case is a decision that concluded with the cancellation of the first-instance ruling, centering on the issue of “reassignment (Seafarer → Wind Power Manager).” Date of Decision: 2026-06-29 · Committee: Central Labor Relations Commission · Case No.: 2026Buhae112 Key Issue Summary: 1. Background of Employment Contract – The worker had been employed as a seafarer belonging to the employer. Due to the sale of the vessel, the seafarer duties were terminated and a new contract was concluded. At that time, the worker had been serving as a seafarer on a vessel operating in a wind farm. In order to make use of the worker’s experience related to wind power accumulated while working as a seafarer, the parties specified in the employment contract dated 7 May 2025 the place of work as “Incheon Office” and the job as “Wind Power (Manager),” and in the course of duties… 1. Legal Implications In this unfair dismissal case, the labor commission focused on whether the employer had abused its managerial discretion in personnel affairs when ordering a transfer. It is a typical type of personnel transfer dispute organized here by Labor Law Firm Law&. In particular, the issue was whether, in a case where a worker with a background as a seafarer in a wind farm was hired as “Wind Power (Manager)” and then transferred to a completely different ship inspection supervision role, the transfer was legitimate or constituted a disadvantageous personnel measure tantamount in substance to unfair dismissal. Ⅰ. Case Overview The worker had been employed as a seafarer by the employer. Due to the sale of the vessel, the existing seafarer duties were terminated, and a new employment contract was concluded on the condition that the worker’s experience related to wind farms would be utilized. In the new employment contract, the place of work was specified as “Incheon Office” and the job as “Wind Power (Manager),” with a clause providing that the place of work could be changed as necessary for business. Subsequently, the employer, citing a reduction in wind power work and the need to reinforce personnel for ship inspection supervision, issued a personnel order transferring the worker from wind power duties to ship inspection supervision duties. The worker applied to the labor commission for relief, arguing that this transfer effectively deprived him of the job agreed in the employment contract and constituted an abuse of managerial discretion in personnel affairs. Ⅱ. Issues The issue in this case is whether, “in circumstances where the employer hired the worker under an employment contract specifying the job as ‘Wind Power (Manager)’ and the place of work, the employer’s transfer of the worker, without proving an objective business necessity, to ship inspection supervision duties unrelated to his career constitutes an abuse of managerial discretion in personnel affairs.” Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Commission’s Reasoning The decision panel noted that the worker concluded a new employment contract premised on the “Wind Power (Manager)” position based on his experience as a seafarer in a wind farm; that, while the contract allowed for changes in the place of work, there was insufficient basis to interpret it as allowing the employer to arbitrarily change the job itself; and that the employer had submitted no objective evidence whatsoever to support its assertions of reduced wind power work or a shortage of ship inspection supervision personnel. In light of these factors, the panel found that the worker would have difficulty maintaining his wind power-related career accumulated to date and that requiring him unilaterally to perform ship inspection supervision duties, for which he had no prior experience or training, would cause a serious career disruption that could not reasonably have been foreseen at the time the employment contract was concluded. Although this case did not involve a dismissal, the commission held that such a transfer constituted a substantial change to an essential element of working conditions (the type and content of work) protected under Article 23(1) of the Labor Standards Act, and that, when balancing business necessity against the worker’s disadvantages in terms of livelihood and career, the measure fell outside the legitimate scope of managerial authority and amounted to an abuse of managerial discretion in personnel affairs. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective) From the worker’s standpoint, how the job and place of work are described in the employment contract is a very important standard when assessing the legitimacy of a transfer or reassignment. Especially in cases like this, where the worker is hired on the premise of experience in a specific field (such as wind power), a transfer that severs that specialized career can go beyond a simple reassignment and constitute a significantly disadvantageous measure. Therefore, upon receiving notice of a transfer, it is advisable to organize and review the contract terms, the existence of objective evidence supporting the stated reasons for the transfer, and the degree of career disruption, and to actively contest the measure before the labor commission if necessary. Furthermore, if the “business necessity” asserted by the employer is limited to bare statements without concrete figures, data, or staffing plans, there is substantial room to question the legitimacy of the transfer order. In such cases, you should request submission of relevant materials and, where necessary, consult with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law& to examine whether the measure can be challenged as a disadvantageous personnel action tantamount to unfair dismissal. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective) From the employer’s perspective, even though personnel orders such as transfers and reassignments generally fall within the scope of managerial authority, where the employment contract specifies the job and place of work, such measures may in effect amount to a change of contract terms. On that premise, the employer must carefully prepare objective grounds for business necessity and consider whether the worker has consented. In particular, if the worker is hired for a specific job/position (e.g., Wind Power (Manager)) with a promise that his experience will be utilized, a transfer to a completely different job will entail disadvantages in terms of career disruption. It is therefore important to document the rationality of the selection of personnel, the organizational and operational necessity, and whether other personnel could have been assigned instead. In addition, where a transfer will significantly alter the worker’s career path, it is helpful for preventing disputes to provide sufficient prior explanation and consultation to obtain the worker’s understanding, and, where necessary, to implement supplementary measures such as training, education, and career management support. Accumulating such processes and documentation will make it easier to have the business necessity and legitimacy of the transfer recognized by the labor commission or the courts. (ⓒ2026 copyright. Labor Attorney Youngseob Moon, Labor Law Firm Law&. Unauthorized reproduction and redistribution are prohibited.) 2. Matters Decided A. Case Overview and Procedural History The transfer in this case was found to constitute an abuse of managerial discretion in personnel affairs. 3. Summary of the Decision A. Summary of the Labor Commission’s Reasoning 1. Background of the Employment Contract - The worker had been employed as a seafarer belonging to the employer. Due to the sale of the vessel, the seafarer duties were terminated and a new contract was concluded. At that time, the worker had been serving as a seafarer on a vessel operating in a wind farm. - In order to make use of the worker’s experience related to wind power accumulated while working as a seafarer, the parties concluded an employment contract dated 7 May 2025 specifying the place of work as “Incheon Office” and the job as “Wind Power (Manager),” and providing that the “place of work” could be changed as necessary for business. 2. Business Necessity - The employer argued that it changed the worker’s job due to a sustained decrease in wind power work and the need to reinforce personnel for ship inspection supervision. - However, it submitted no objective evidence whatsoever to support this claim, and even according to the employer’s own statements, it appears that, apart from the worker in this case, the other employees in charge of wind power duties continued to work in their existing roles. 3. Disadvantages in Terms of Livelihood - Even if it is difficult to recognize economic disadvantages in relation to support for communication expenses or a company vehicle, as these are incidental to the nature of the duties performed, - The fact that the worker can no longer readily maintain the “Wind Power (Manager)” career specifically designated as the job content at the time of contracting, and that he is required, by the employer’s unilateral instruction, to perform ship inspection supervision duties for which he has no experience and has received no training, causes a disruption in the worker’s career. This results in not insignificant disadvantages that the worker could not have foreseen at the time the employment contract was concluded. Taking into comprehensive account the circumstances surrounding the conclusion of the employment contract, the employer’s failure to prove business necessity, and the disadvantages the worker must bear in terms of career disruption, the transfer in this case was found to constitute an abuse of managerial discretion in personnel affairs. [See More Related Decisions] - “Unfair Dismissal Case on ‘Business Necessity (Reassignment of Cleaner)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Case on ‘Expectation of Employment Succession (Logistics Center Competitive Bidding)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Case on ‘Appropriateness of Disciplinary Measure (Participation in Services for Another Institution)’” [Tags] Unfair dismissal, reassignment (Seafarer → Wind Power Manager), personnel orders · transfer, performance evaluation · poor performance, 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 Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&. ※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Case on ‘Agreement on Conversion to Regular Employment (Expiration of Fixed-Term Contract)’,” in a new window. ※ You can also view the list of decisions related to reassignment (Seafarer → Wind Power Manager) at “List of Decisions on Reassignment (Seafarer → Wind Power Manager).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article