[Court Ruling]
The court has ruled that transferring employees who were working in Seoul to Paju, Gyeonggi Province, under the pretext of organizational restructuring, was unjustified because there was little business necessity and the transfer caused significant disadvantages to the employees' daily lives.
The 12th Administrative Division of the Seoul Administrative Court (Presiding Judge Kang Jaewon) ruled against the plaintiff on June 19 in a lawsuit (2024GuHap64987) filed by Corporation A against the Central Labor Relations Commission, seeking to overturn the commission's decision to reject a request for relief from unfair transfer.
[Facts]
Corporation A, citing organizational restructuring, issued a transfer order in July 2023 for four employees from Team B, moving them from an office in Mapo-gu, Seoul (hereinafter referred to as the Seoul Office) to a logistics center in Paju-eup, Paju (hereinafter referred to as the Northern Center). The transferred employees applied for relief to the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission, claiming that there was no business necessity for the transfer and that the increased commuting time caused significant disadvantages. The Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission accepted their request for relief. Corporation A then appealed to the Central Labor Relations Commission, but when the appeal was dismissed, it filed an administrative lawsuit.
[Court's Judgment]
The court ruled against the plaintiff, stating that the transfer of Team B employees exceeded the scope of discretionary authority.
The court first noted, "Although the employment contract states 'I agree to the job rotation policy,' there have been almost no cases of personnel transfers between the Seoul Office and the Northern Center prior to this transfer," and added, "Corporation A's job postings specify Seoul as the work location for Seoul Office employees and Paju as the work location for Northern Center employees."
The court further explained, "Issuing a personnel order that changes the work location for employees who have continuously worked at the Seoul Office, as in this transfer, appears to be highly unusual. Except for one, all the transferred employees had worked there for over ten years," adding, "These circumstances must be taken into account when assessing the business necessity of the transfer."
The court also pointed out, "The Team B employees assigned to the Northern Center do not possess the required licenses for logistics work, such as a Class 1 large vehicle license or a forklift license. As a result, they have to ask other licensed employees to release goods, so it cannot be said that the transfer brought rational efficiency to the company's operations."
The court concluded, "Due to the transfer, Team B employees now have longer commuting distances and times, increased transportation costs, and are experiencing mental stress. Although Corporation A provided a monthly job rotation allowance of 200,000 won, this alone is insufficient to compensate for the disadvantages suffered by Team B employees in their daily lives."
Lee Sangwoo, Law Times Reporter
※This article is based on content supplied by Law Times.
© The Asia Business Daily(www.asiae.co.kr). All rights reserved.
