Labor Specialist Attorney | Representing the Company to Obtain Dismissal of a Worker's Remedy Application for Unfair Transfer

The applicant who filed the request for remedy (hereinafter the worker) was working as a team leader at a branch of the client company's customer service team, when his position was changed to a member of the sales team within the same branch.

The worker claimed that after he raised a complaint about the result of his most recent personnel evaluation, a disadvantageous change of duties was forced upon him for that reason, and that this constituted an unjust personnel order lacking business necessity.

Accordingly, the applicant sought remedy through the Labor Relations Commission not only for reinstatement to his original position but also for payment of the amount of wages unpaid during the transfer period.

At the time, the client company was in the process of selling some of its business rights to an outside company and reorganizing its structure in order to resolve long-term operating losses and reduce marginal areas.

The customer service team was subject to reduction, and at the same time, the addition of sales personnel at that branch was unavoidable.

Because the transfer was carried out within the same branch, no substantial disadvantage arose in the working environment, such as commuting, and a procedure of interviewing and providing prior explanation to the employee had also been conducted before the personnel assignment.

If the application for remedy were granted, the client company could face a situation in which it would have to not only deal with organizational confusion caused by reinstatement but also retroactively pay an amount equivalent to wages.

Accordingly, the client entrusted this firm's labor law specialist attorney with advisory and representation work so as to prevent in advance any infringement of the company's image and personnel authority.

Owing to continuous operating losses in the region, the client company sold off part of its jurisdictional area to another company, and as a result it became substantially difficult to maintain the customer service team.

Accordingly, the firm proved, through company rules, the organizational chart, and internal management plans, that reducing part of the office workforce and strengthening the sales organization was managerially unavoidable.

In addition, by making clear that both the customer service team and the sales team were classified as the "general job group" and that, under the internal personnel regulations, a transfer of duties within the same job group is permitted, the firm emphasized that, contrary to the worker's assertion, this was not a "forced reassignment to an entirely different occupation."

The employee side argued that there had been no consent from the employee before the personnel order, but in fact an interview was conducted after the personnel evaluation, containing a detailed explanation of the reasons for the withdrawal of the position and the job change, and the conversation at the time of the interview had all been recorded.

In addition, the passage in which the employee proposed a job change or expressed an intention to accept it was also submitted as documentary evidence, which weakened the credibility of the employee's argument.

Meanwhile, personnel evaluations are conducted regularly each year, and it was proven that the employee had received grades of B and C in major items in the immediately preceding evaluation, a level at which maintaining the position or rank was difficult under the internal evaluation criteria.

The objection to the evaluation was also reexamined by the internal review committee, but it was proven, through the minutes and related materials, that the appropriateness of the evaluation was recognized and the result was maintained.

In order to satisfy the comparison and balancing requirement required by Supreme Court precedent, the labor attorney analyzed in concrete terms the substantial disadvantage to the employee resulting from the transfer.

The attorney confirmed that this transfer was a move of duties within the same branch, requiring no change of residence, with no change in commuting time, and that the reduction in pay resulting from the change of position was within a small amount generally permissible.

Accordingly, the attorney emphasized that it was difficult to regard the disadvantage to the employee's life resulting from the transfer as markedly excessive.

A company's transfer and reassignment of personnel are at the core of the employment contract and are a power crucial to organizational operation.

If a claim of unfair transfer is abused and, in the rare event that an application for remedy is granted, the company must bear practical losses such as duplicated labor costs, organizational confusion, and a decline in trust in the internal personnel system.

A company should therefore work together with a labor attorney to secure sufficient objective evidence in advance, such as company rules, evaluation criteria, and interview records, and receive expert advice from the personnel-assignment stage to minimize unnecessary risk.

This firm forms a task force composed of a labor attorney and a labor consultant to provide strategies that can respond effectively when a dispute arises.

To enhance convenience for corporate clients, we operate a video consultation system and a prompt response process, so please feel free at any time to request a consultation through a 🔗legal consultation reservation.