1. Case Overview

a. Party Represented by Barun Law

The party represented by Barun was a public corporation, K (which is the respondent in this case, "K Corporation"), established under relevant laws to support and promote activities related to intangible cultural heritage, including performances and exhibitions.

b. Background of the Case and Litigation

The claimant filed a petition with the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission, arguing that "the transfer order in this case was issued solely because of my gender, without any recognized business necessity. The transfer caused changes in working conditions, such as relocation of the workplace and weekend work for at least one day, which resulted in personal disadvantages. Furthermore, there was no sincere consultation, making this an unfair personnel order"

2. Judgment

On June 4, 2024, the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission ruled that “the transfer order in this case was recognized as necessary for business, the alleged disadvantages to the employee’s life were within the range that the employee should generally tolerate, and the employer consulted with the employee. Therefore, it is a legitimate personnel order,” dismissing the employee’s petition for relief. (This decision has finally confirmed).

3. Our Arguments and Role

Based on the extensive experience in winning numerous cases where the legality of an employer’s exercise of personnel rights was contested, we, representing K Corporaiton, actively argued and demonstrated that: the need for the transfer in this case was recognized as the corporation required additional personnel to handle the OOO ceremonial duties; the decision to transfer was made after comprehensively considering the employee’s job skills and the appropriate allocation of labor; although the transfer involved changes in the workplace and weekend work, there was no change in salary, and the employee’s commute distance was even shortened, making the disadvantages not beyond what the employee should normally tolerate; and before the transfer decision, a interview on preferred duties and a consultation meeting were conducted, demonstrating that the process included adequate consultation. We effectively argued and proved that the transfer was a legitimate personnel order.

4. Significance of the Judgment

The most critical factor for an employer to consider when exercising personnel authority is the business necessity, which should be approached from the perspective of rational organization and operation by the employer. Additionally, when selecting the employee subject to the personnel change, the employer must ensure rationality, typically evaluated based on the replaceability of other employees. Moreover, to ensure procedural fairness, the employer must thoroughly consider the personal circumstances of the employee to alleviate any disadvantages in their life. The employer should also provide a sufficient explanation to the employee, creating an opportunity for the employee to accept the decision or for the employee’s requests to be reflected. This judgment, confirming the legality or limits of an employer’s personnel order (or transfer, reassignment) through a thorough review based on legal principles, can serve as an important precedent in other cases.

□ Attorneys in charge: Moon Ki-Joo and Jeong I-Yeong