This case concerns an unfair dismissal decision arising from a dispute over a “transfer order (change of workplace for an academy instructor),” in which the employer ultimately prevailed (application dismissed). [Case Information] This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of a “transfer order (change of workplace for an academy instructor).” Decision Committee: Jeju Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae121 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal 2026-07-30 · Case result: Dismissed Summary of key issues: A. Whether the employee’s consent is required for a change in workplace If the employment contract does not specify the place of work and provides that the employer may change the place of work as necessary, the place of work cannot be regarded as fixed. Even if, at the time of drafting the employment contract, the manager answered that there would be no change in the place of work, this is merely an explanation that the status quo would be maintained as of the time of contract formation, and cannot be viewed as a commitment that the place of work would not be changed in the future even when there is a business necessity. 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview In this case, an instructor employed at a private academy received a transfer order assigning the instructor to a different course and workplace. The employee claimed unfair dismissal and filed an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission. The Jeju Regional Labor Relations Commission focused on the legitimacy of the transfer order, in particular whether the employee’s consent was required for the change of workplace and whether there was a business necessity for the transfer, and ruled in favor of the employer. Ⅱ. Summary of Issues The issue in this case is whether, in a situation where the employment contract does not specify the place of work and contains a clause allowing the employer to change the workplace as necessary, a transfer/change of workplace based on organizational restructuring of the academy can be made without the employee’s consent, and whether such a transfer order constitutes an unlawful personnel measure amounting to unfair dismissal. Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning The decision panel in this case found that: the employment contract did not specify the place of work and instead provided that “the employer may change the place of work as necessary”; the manager’s explanation at the time of contract formation that “there will be no change in the place of work” was merely guidance on maintaining the then-current status and cannot easily be regarded as a commitment excluding future changes in the place of work even in the event of business necessity; and reorganizing an integrated operation into separate units by course of study was a business judgment that could not readily be deemed unreasonable, and the reassignment was related to the employee’s main teaching subject. In light of these points, the Commission held that there was a business necessity for the transfer order. The Commission held that the dismissal in this case did not violate Article 23(1) of the Labor Standards Act, nor did the transfer order constitute an abuse of the employer’s rights. It further found that the disadvantages in the employee’s daily life resulting from the transfer did not significantly exceed the level that employees are ordinarily expected to endure. Accordingly, the measure did not amount to unfair dismissal. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) If the employment contract does not specify the place of work, or if it contains a clause allowing the employer to change the workplace as necessary, employees should be aware that it is difficult to assert a strong right of consent in relation to ordinary transfer or reassignment orders. However, if the transfer causes disadvantages in daily life that clearly exceed the ordinary range, or if there are circumstances suggesting that the transfer is for disciplinary or retaliatory purposes, it is necessary to specifically prove such circumstances and adopt a strategy of contesting the matter before the Labor Relations Commission. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s/Company’s Perspective) From the employer’s perspective, it is important not to specify the place of work in the employment contract and to clearly include a clause allowing transfers or reassignments as necessary. At the time of issuing an actual personnel order, the employer should also keep records of the need for organizational restructuring, the rational reasons for selecting the particular employee as the subject of the transfer, and the continuity of duties and the relationship between the new duties and the employee’s course or major. In addition, the employer should adjust matters so that disadvantages in daily life, such as commuting distance and changes in the working environment, are not excessive, and, where possible, secure procedural fairness under the principle of good faith by going through processes of explanation and consultation. Doing so will significantly strengthen the employer’s position in future disputes over unfair dismissal or redundancy dismissals. Through decisions such as this one by the Labor Relations Commission, both employees and employers should bear in mind that a transfer or change of workplace is not immediately recognized as unfair dismissal. Rather, the contents of the employment contract, the existence of business necessity, and the degree of disadvantage in daily life are assessed comprehensively. To prevent and respond to disputes before the Labor Relations Commission, it is advisable to work with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law& from the initial employment contract stage to refine contract clauses and personnel management standards. 2. Matters Decided A. Case Overview and Procedural History A. Whether the employee’s consent is required for a change in workplace If the employment contract does not specify the place of work and provides that the employer may change it as necessary, the place of work cannot be regarded as fixed. Even if, at the time of drafting the employment contract, the employee received an answer from the manager that there would be no change in the place of work, this is merely an explanation that the status quo would be maintained as of the time of contract formation, and cannot be viewed as a commitment that the place of work would not be changed in the future even when there is a business necessity. B. Whether business necessity is recognized Reorganizing an integrated operation into separate units by course of study was a business judgment that could not readily be deemed unreasonable, and the employee’s main teaching subject … 3. Summary of the Decision A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning A. Whether the employee’s consent is required for a change in workplace If the employment contract does not specify the place of work and provides that the employer may change it as necessary, the place of work cannot be regarded as fixed. Even if, at the time of drafting the employment contract, the employee received an answer from the manager that there would be no change in the place of work, this is merely an explanation that the status quo would be maintained as of the time of contract formation, and cannot be viewed as a commitment that the place of work would not be changed in the future even when there is a business necessity. B. Whether business necessity is recognized Reorganizing an integrated operation into separate units by course of study was a business judgment that could not readily be deemed unreasonable, and the employee’s main teaching subject … / [See More Related Decisions] - “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’” – Date of Decision: – Case Result: First-instance decision upheld - “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’” [Tags] Unfair dismissal, transfer order (change of workplace for academy instructor), transfer/reassignment, personnel appointment, 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 Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&. ※ The previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Right to Terminate During Probation (Evaluation·Interview Procedures)’,” can be viewed in a new window. ※ The list of decisions related to transfer orders (change of workplace for academy instructors) can be viewed together in the “List of Decisions Related to Transfer Orders (Change of Workplace for Academy Instructors).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article