Order to transfer to different job or department

An employee, based at a local work location, hastily gathers their belongings as they receive an unexpected personnel appointment, causing them considerable discomfort. Companies routinely issue various personnel orders, including regional assignments, department transfers, standby orders, and dismissals, which employees often accept without protest. These personnel appointments serve multiple purposes, such as enhancing work efficiency, boosting productivity, reorganizing the organization, facilitating personnel exchanges, mitigating management risks, and facilitating technology transfers between affiliated firms. Generally, these personnel orders fall within the purview of the employer, granting the company substantial discretion. However, are there any limitations imposed on employers in this regard? Recently, the head of the Human Resources department in a certain company approached me seeking a solution for an employee who adamantly resisted a local assignment and threatened legal action if coerced. This company has routinely issued personnel orders for various reasons, met with little resistance from employees. When an employee challenged one such order, it created an uncomfortable situation that required intervention. While companies have discretion regarding personnel orders, they cannot issue them arbitrarily without limitations. A precedent has set forth three requirements for justifying a personnel order: 1) a legitimate business necessity, 2) the absence of detrimental impact on the employee's life, and 3) employee consent or a genuine consultation process. Failure to meet these legitimacy criteria has led to several cases where personnel orders were deemed unfair. First and foremost, there must be a "business necessity" for personnel orders, which can encompass various reasons such as optimizing human resource allocation, improving work efficiency, nurturing employee skills, boosting work motivation, revitalizing business operations, adjusting personnel due to technological advancements or corporate reorganization, and maintaining workplace order. Furthermore, personnel orders should not cause any harm to employees in their daily lives. "Detriments in daily life" pertain to any disadvantages suffered by employees as a result of personnel orders. Even if such orders are necessary for work, they are invalidated if they bring about significant and unforeseeable detrimental changes to the employee's life without justifiable reasons. The predictability and manageability of these life disadvantages are determined by factors like changes in job descriptions affecting work performance, alterations in work locations impacting commute logistics, or any special benefits employees received due to their previous roles. For instance, if a worker living in Ilsan, who previously worked at the Incheon branch, is transferred to the Daejeon branch without prior agreement, it would adversely affect their daily life. However, if the company provides assistance like covering relocation expenses, offering housing loans, or providing the employee's previous salary for a defined period, it can mitigate these living disadvantages. Finally, employee consent to the company's personnel order justifies the order. However, obtaining consent can be challenging in practice, making it possible if a sincere consultation process has been followed when issuing personnel orders. In summary, there are specific requirements to assess the legitimacy of personnel orders that may appear to be at the company's discretion. It is essential not to misconstrue the ability to issue personnel orders freely just because no issues have arisen in the past. Personnel orders must be grounded in reasonable justifications.

Only humans have IP protection for now

Q: How is AI copyright protected under current laws and regulations? A: Current patent laws, as outlined in Article 33 of the Patent Act, stipulate that patents can be granted to the 'person' responsible for inventing or their legal successors. Consequently, patent law restricts inventors to individuals (natural persons). Regarding copyright, Article 2, Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Copyright Act define 'work' as a creative expression of thoughts or emotions by a 'human being.' The law explicitly specifies that AI, being non-human, cannot be considered the author of a work. Nevertheless, patent rights or copyrights can be granted to inventions or creations made with the assistance of AI, provided that they incorporate human creative efforts. The U.S. Copyright Office has been developing guidelines on this matter since March of the previous year. Q: It appears there are ongoing discussions about the recognition of AI copyright. Can you provide more insight? A: On December 21, 2020, a group of 11 individuals, including Representative Joo Ho-young, proposed a legislative amendment to the National Assembly to introduce the concept of 'AI work' explicitly into the copyright law system. This proposed amendment acknowledges not AI itself but rather those who create works utilizing AI services, as well as AI producers and service providers who contribute creatively to AI work production, as the eligible subjects of copyright. Additionally, AI-generated creations will be categorized as special works and protected for a period of five years. The matter of whether to grant exclusive rights to AI-generated output or to recognize AI as the inventor or creator itself is a topic that must be addressed through societal discourse, consensus-building, and legislative action. Q: Concerns arise when AI learns from existing creative works, potentially infringing upon copyright. Are there efforts to mitigate this issue? A: Challenges related to the infringement of third-party rights during the development of learning datasets have emerged. To address this concern, the recent revision of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act has included data illegal acquisition as a form of unfair competition. While there is increasing clarity regarding data protection, there remain uncertainties regarding the extent to which data can be ethically collected and employed for AI learning purposes. The establishment of AI-related technology is a pivotal factor that can impact a nation's competitiveness in the future. Consequently, there is a pressing need to create an environment that actively encourages AI development through institutional support.