안전 바카라사이트

①Barun Law (Attorneys Noh Man-kyeong, Moon Ki-joo, and Kim Da-yeon) represented an incorporated association with business objectives of carrying out trust management of copyrights to music copyrighted work.

②Case background: In or about January 2019, the incorporate association developed standards regarding recruitment of additional employees and relocation of the existing employees by regional office with intent to cope with the expansion of business categories subject to the collection of copyright fees and to enhance capabilities of regional offices that had reported poor performance. Accordingly, the incorporated association selected candidates who would be relocated to another post and conducted interviews with them. The incorporated association finally chose an employee and directed him to move to the post. The employee filed for relief with the Seoul District Labor Commission, arguing that the relocation order was unreasonable. The Seoul District Labor Commission accepted the employee’s claim. The incorporated association refused to accept the Seoul District Labor Commission’s decision, and filed for a retrial with the Central Labor Commission, The Central Labor Commission dismissed the incorporated association’s request for retrial.

​

③Litigation: The incorporated association filed a lawsuit against the Commissioner of the Central Labor Commission to seek to cancel the Commissioner’s decision on the rejection of retrial, arguing “Relocation was made for business necessity to cope with the increase in performance management work in accordance with the revision of the Enforcement Decree of the Copyright Act. Disadvantage allegedly suffered by employee cannot be viewed that it is significantly beyond the degree employees cannot generally tolerate. The plaintiff took a procedure to discuss with the employee about the relocation as required under the principle of good faith. Thus, the relocation is reasonable.” The employee participated in the administration lawsuit as a participant assisting the defendant.

​

​ The 12^{안전 바카라사이트} Division of the Seoul Administration Court accepted the plaintiff’s claims on October 15, 2020 on the basis of the following grounds: “[T]안전 바카라사이트 relocation is found to be sufficiently necessary for business. the disadvantage alleged by the employee is not beyond the degree that employees cannot generally tolerate. The relocation was made within the scope of the plaintiff’s legitimate authority because the plaintiff had taken a discussion procedure required under the principle of good faith, and therefore, the relocation cannot be deemed unfair. Thus, the Commissioner’s decision was illegal because the decision was made on the premises different from the foregoing.”

​3. Basis of the decision

​ The judges determined, “(1) In relation to business necessity, (i) the plaintiff had business necessity to deploy some employees at a branch office reporting good performance to a branch office reporting poor performance; (ii) the plaintiff was reasonable in selecting the employee as those subject to relocation; (iii) it is difficult for this court to see that the plaintiff decided to relocate the employee as retaliatory measure against the criminal complaint and the complaint that the employee had filed with the Employment and Labor Office against an officer of the plaintiff; (iv) the relocation cannot be viewed that it was discretionally made regardless of business necessity; and (v) the relocation is permitted even under the employment contract executed by the employee. (2) Even though the employee was inflicted disadvantage in terms of daily living due to the relocation, it is difficult for this court to assess that the disadvantage is significantly beyond the degree that cannot be generally tolerated by employees. (3) The plaintiff took a discussion procedure required under the principle of good faith.”

​ After analyzing legal theory and precedents regarding the validity of an employer’s direction to relocate an employee, we argued and substantiated that (i) there were necessities for the plaintiff to supplement the personnel by regional office, to deploy a responsible employee according to performance, to fill a vacancy at regional offices, to redeploy employees according to their home town, and to supplement and redeploy employees by regional office due to the expansion of the scope of businesses subject to collection. In particular, (ii) the relocation was made in accordance with certain established standards of deploying employees to a regional office reporting poor performance from regional offices reporting good performance. Further, (iii) disadvantage to be suffered by the employee could not viewed that it was significantly beyond the degree that could not be generally tolerated by employees. (iv) We also argued and substantiated on the basis of specific evidence that the employer had faithfully discussed the relocation with the employee.

​5. Implication

The decision has reaffirmed that an employer has considerable discretion within the scope necessary for business since the transfer or relocation of an employee to another post belongs to the authority of the employer who is, in principle, the person in charge of personnel. However, although the employer has considerable discretion in the transfer or relocation of employees to another post, the occurrence of legal risks in the future cannot be excluded. Thus, it is necessary to receive legal review in advance, so that an employer can be recognized that 안전 바카라사이트/she exercises his/her authority over personnel on the basis of business necessity to change the deployment of employees and the employees subject to transfer or relocation are chosen in a reasonable manner.