[Case Information] This case is a decision in which the initial ruling was upheld on the issue of the “legitimacy of reassignment (abolition of night-shift department).” Decision date: 2026-09-15 · Decision body: Central Labor Relations Commission · Case No.: 2026BuHae287 Summary of key issues: A. Business necessity The employee clearly recognized from the time of hiring that the work shift, workplace, and duties could be changed, and the department to which the employee had been dispatched for night work was abolished, leaving no vacant night-shift worksites. The employee was therefore assigned to a daytime worksite, and business necessity was found to exist. B. Living disadvantages The employee’s wages did not decrease due to the reassignment, and the change in lifestyle did not exceed the range that an employee is ordinarily expected to bear… 1. Legal Implications This article examines a decision of the Central Labor Relations Commission dealing with reassignment/transfer issues that are closely related to unfair dismissal disputes, in order to see how the Labor Relations Commission assesses the legitimacy of a reassignment order. In particular, we will summarize how the Commission comprehensively evaluated business necessity, living disadvantages, and compliance with the duty to consult under the principle of good faith, and explain this together with the practical experience of Labor Law Firm Law&. Ⅰ. Case Overview In this case, an employee who had been working in a night-shift dispatch department received a reassignment order to a daytime worksite after the dispatch department was abolished. The employee argued that the reassignment severely infringed on his lifestyle and challenged the legitimacy of the reassignment order, while the employer contended that it was a legitimate personnel measure based on business necessity, thereby bringing the issue before the Labor Relations Commission. Ⅱ. Issues The issue in this case is whether, in circumstances where the employee had recognized from the time of hiring that the work shift, workplace, and duties could be changed, and where the night-shift dispatch department was abolished, the reassignment order constituted a legitimate exercise of managerial prerogative when business necessity, living disadvantages, and compliance with the duty to consult under the principle of good faith are considered comprehensively. Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning The panel in this case noted that the employer had abolished the night-shift dispatch department where the employee had been working, leaving no vacant night-shift positions to which the employee could be assigned; that the employee had clearly recognized from the time of hiring that the work shift, workplace, and duties could be changed; that the employee’s wages did not decrease after the reassignment and that it was difficult to view the change in lifestyle as significantly exceeding the range ordinarily borne by employees; and that, during the reassignment process, the employer communicated with the employee multiple times and adjusted conditions, thereby complying with the consultation procedures required under the principle of good faith. Considering that the employee’s living disadvantages could not be regarded as excessive compared to the business necessity, and that the employee’s violation of the work rules by engaging in dual employment undermined the legitimacy of the employee’s claims, the panel held that: The reassignment in this case was supported by business necessity; the living disadvantages did not significantly exceed the range ordinarily borne by employees; and the consultation procedures required under the principle of good faith were observed. Accordingly, the reassignment fell within the scope of a legitimate exercise of managerial prerogative and did not constitute an abuse of rights. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) From the employee’s standpoint, in order to challenge the unfairness of a reassignment/transfer, it is not sufficient merely to assert that “life has become inconvenient.” It is necessary to specifically prove, from multiple angles such as wages, work patterns, commuting distance, and family care responsibilities, that the living disadvantages clearly exceed the range ordinarily borne by employees. In addition, because the existence of any agreement at the time of hiring regarding possible changes in workplace or work shift, the content of the work rules, and the employee’s own dual employment or rule violations are all considered in the assessment, it is important to objectively review whether there are any unfavorable circumstances for oneself and then formulate a relief strategy accordingly. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective) From the employer’s standpoint, in order to have the legitimacy of a reassignment/transfer recognized, first, the objective necessity for changes in personnel allocation and the rational reasons for selecting the particular employee as the subject of reassignment should be documented. Second, the reassignment should be structured so that disadvantages in terms of wages, benefits, and working hours are minimized, and, where necessary, efforts to mitigate living disadvantages—such as through allowances or commuting support—should be demonstrated. Third, if the process of multiple consultations and explanations with the employee before and after the reassignment order is recorded in emails or interview notes, such records can serve as decisive evidence in determining whether the consultation procedures required under the principle of good faith have been observed. 2. Matters Decided A. Case overview and procedural history A case in which the reassignment was found to be legitimate because business necessity was recognized, living disadvantages were not substantial, and the consultation procedures required under the principle of good faith were observed. 3. Summary of Decision A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning A. Business necessity The employee clearly recognized from the time of hiring that the work shift, workplace, and duties could be changed, and the department to which the employee had been dispatched was abolished, leaving no vacant night-shift worksites. The employee was therefore assigned to a daytime worksite, and business necessity was recognized. B. Living disadvantages The employee’s wages did not decrease due to the reassignment, and it is difficult to view the change in lifestyle as exceeding the range ordinarily borne by employees. Moreover, the employee had been engaged in dual employment in violation of the work rules, which cannot justify the employee’s claims. Therefore, the living disadvantages cannot be regarded as significantly exceeding the degree ordinarily to be borne by employees compared to the business necessity, and the reassignment falls within the scope of legitimate managerial prerogative and does not constitute an abuse of rights. C. Compliance with consultation procedures required under the principle of good faith The employer was found to have communicated with the employee multiple times regarding the reassignment and to have adjusted conditions, thereby complying with the consultation procedures required under the principle of good faith. [See More Related Decisions] - “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Business Necessity (Reassignment of Cleaner)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Disciplinary Severity (Participation in Outsourced Work for Another Institution)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Interest in Relief / Refusal to Rehire (Post-Retirement Fixed-Term Employment)’” [Tags] Unfair dismissal, legitimacy of reassignment (abolition of night-shift department), personnel transfer/reassignment, abuse of managerial prerogative, 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 ‘Employee Status · Existence of Dismissal (Pet Groomer)’,” can be viewed in a new window. ※ The list of decisions related to the legitimacy of reassignment (abolition of night-shift department) can be viewed together in the “List of Decisions on Legitimacy of Reassignment (Abolition of Night-Shift Department).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article