[Case Information] This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “business necessity (transfer of an indefinite-term employee due to conflict).” Decision date: 2026-07-27 · Labor Relations Commission: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission · Case No.: 2026부해1950 Key issue summary: A. Whether there was business necessity Given that both the indefinite-term employee and the other employees at the Health Promotion Center were in a state of severe conflict, that even if only Mr. Baek ○○ were transferred to the Seoul Health Promotion Center it would still have been difficult to expect proper performance of duties at the Suwon Health Promotion Center, and that transferring all of the other employees who were in conflict with the employee to Seoul would also have been highly inappropriate, the Commission held that, in light of the need to resolve the conflict and secure work efficiency, … 1. Legal Implications This unfair dismissal case, which was litigated before the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission over the legitimacy of a transfer order, is a precedent in which the Commission broadly recognized the scope of the employer’s right to manage personnel. In particular, the decision is an important reference for the practice of Labor Law Firm Law& in that the Commission viewed a transfer measure taken against the backdrop of conflict within a Health Promotion Center not as an unfair dismissal but as a legitimate transfer. Ⅰ. Case Overview An indefinite-term employee working at the Suwon Health Promotion Center received a transfer order to the Seoul Health Promotion Center amid ongoing severe conflict with colleagues. The employee applied to the Labor Relations Commission for relief, arguing that the transfer caused disadvantages in daily life, that there had been no consultation procedure, and that the measure constituted an unfair personnel action tantamount to unfair dismissal. Ⅱ. Summary of Issues The issue in this case is whether a transfer measure based on serious conflict within a Health Promotion Center can be regarded as a legitimate exercise of managerial prerogative, where business necessity is recognized and the disadvantages in the employee’s daily life are not substantial, even if no separate consultation procedure was conducted. Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning The panel in this case found that the employer needed to change personnel assignments in order to resolve the severe conflict between the indefinite-term employee and other employees at the Health Promotion Center and to normalize operations at the Suwon Center; that, in this process, transferring all other employees to Seoul would have been markedly unreasonable from a personnel management standpoint, such that there was rationality in selecting the employee in question as the subject of transfer; and that, given that the employee’s wages actually increased after the transfer and that, considering commuting conditions and workload, it was difficult to view the disadvantages in daily life as clearly exceeding what is ordinarily tolerable, the business necessity and legitimacy of the transfer were established. The Commission noted that, after the transfer order, the employee’s annual salary increased through renewal of the contract, so there was no economic disadvantage; that public transportation between the Seoul and Suwon campuses was well developed, so commuting did not pose significant difficulty; and that the employee enjoyed a collateral benefit of reduced workload due to the change in workplace. In light of these factors, the Commission found it difficult to conclude that the disadvantages in the employee’s daily life resulting from the transfer reached a substantial level. The panel further held that, although whether the employer faithfully conducted a consultation procedure with the employee when issuing a transfer order is one factor in determining whether the personnel action constitutes a legitimate exercise of managerial prerogative, under Supreme Court precedent the mere fact that such a procedure was not followed does not, by itself, render the transfer an abuse of right and therefore invalid. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) From the employee’s standpoint, to challenge a transfer as an unfair personnel measure, it is not enough to assert mere psychological discomfort or a typical increase in commuting time. You must specifically prove that the disadvantages in daily life—such as those affecting wages, duties, health, and family life—clearly exceed the range ordinarily to be borne. In addition, where workplace conflict is used as a ground for transfer, it is important to systematically organize the cause and course of the conflict, the employer’s failure to mediate, and any circumstances suggesting discriminatory selection of a particular employee as the transfer target. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s/Company’s Perspective) From the employer’s perspective, when preparing personnel measures such as transfers or redundancies, it is necessary to retain objective records on: (i) the necessity of changing personnel assignments; (ii) the rationality of including the employee in question as a transfer target; and (iii) measures taken to mitigate disadvantages in daily life after the transfer (such as maintaining or increasing wages, providing commuting support, and adjusting workload). Although a consultation procedure is not a requirement for the validity of a transfer, keeping records of prior explanations and efforts to hear the employee’s views will greatly help prevent disputes over abuse of right. Accordingly, employers are advised to review and refine their personnel regulations and actual operational practices in advance. 2. Matters Decided A. Case Overview and Procedural History A case in which the transfer was found to be legitimate on the grounds that business necessity was recognized and the disadvantages in daily life could not be considered substantial. 3. Summary of the Decision A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning a. Whether there was business necessity Given that both the indefinite-term employee and the other employees at the Health Promotion Center were in a state of severe conflict, that even if only Mr. Baek ○○ were transferred to the Seoul Health Promotion Center it would still have been difficult to expect proper performance of duties at the Suwon Health Promotion Center, and that transferring all of the other employees who were in conflict with the employee to Seoul would also have been highly inappropriate, the Commission determined that there was unavoidable business necessity to issue a transfer order to the employee in question in order to resolve the conflict and secure work efficiency. b. Whether there were disadvantages in daily life The Commission found that, after the transfer order, the employee suffered no wage-related disadvantage, as the annual salary increased through contract renewal; that there was no significant inconvenience in commuting because public transportation between the Seoul and Suwon campuses of the corporation was well developed; and that the employee enjoyed a collateral benefit of reduced workload due to the change in workplace. In light of these circumstances, the Commission held that the disadvantages in the employee’s daily life resulting from the transfer could not be considered substantial. c. Whether the consultation procedure required under the principle of good faith was observed The Commission stated that whether the employer faithfully conducted a consultation procedure with the employee when issuing a transfer order is one factor in determining whether the personnel action constitutes a legitimate exercise of managerial prerogative. However, the mere fact that such a procedure was not followed does not, in itself, render the transfer an abuse of right that is automatically null and void. [See More Related Decisions] - “Unfair Dismissal Case on ‘Business Necessity (Reassignment of Cleaner)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Case on ‘Disciplinary Severity (Participation in Services for Another Institution)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Case on ‘Relief Interest and Refusal to Rehire (Post-Retirement Fixed-Term Employment)’” [Tags] Unfair dismissal, business necessity (transfer of indefinite-term employee due to conflict), personnel transfer, workplace conflict, 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 Case Law” series by Labor Law Firm Law&. ※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Case on ‘Dismissal of Application (Failure to Respond to Request for Correction – Text Message Sent)’,” in a new window. ※ The list of decisions related to business necessity (transfer of indefinite-term employee due to conflict) can be viewed together at “List of Decisions on Business Necessity (Transfer of Indefinite-Term Employee Due to Conflict).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article