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.