“Only Koreans were unfairly reassigned to call centers and stores” IKEA headquarters employees file a petition with the Labor Office···IKEA says “sufficiently consulted” - 경향신문
This article was translated by an AI tool. Feedback Here.
Employees at IKEA Korea’s head office (SO·Service Office) filed a collective petition with the Ministry of Employment and Labor, claiming they were forced into unfair reassignments to call centers and stores and into voluntary resignations. They also alleged that during the headquarters reorganization, unfair reassignments and recommendations to resign targeted only Korean employees. IKEA Korea countered that “internal job-transfer opportunities were fairly offered to everyone.”
According to Kyunghyang Shinmun’s reporting on the 9th, five people including Employee A, who had worked at IKEA Korea’s head office, recently submitted a petition to the Anyang District Office of the Ministry of Employment and Labor, requesting an investigation into whether IKEA Korea violated the Labor Standards Act, saying the company used its superior position to impose unfair personnel measures. Four of them also filed for relief from unfair transfers with the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission.
Since April, IKEA Korea has carried out an organizational restructuring that consolidated existing departments or created new ones. During this process, it conducted competitive internal hiring for three months to facilitate job transfers. When internal job postings went up, employees applied and interviewed, and if accepted, they would move to the new role.
According to IKEA Korea, about 30 out of 160 head-office employees were affected by the restructuring. Of these, roughly 10 who could not find internal roles were either temporarily assigned to store positions or informed by the company about ‘an exit package with a monetary payment.’
Employee A and others say that after being notified they were removed from their previous roles, they applied for desired positions but were rejected, or they refused transfers to roles unrelated to their experience. When they failed to transfer, they claim the company pressured them through meetings to choose between ‘a six-month temporary post in a store’ and ‘an exit package.’
Ultimately, starting early this month, Employee A and others were assigned for six months to store logistics teams or to the remote customer-contact department (call center). Their duties involve moving furniture and other items in stores or answering customer complaint callsfar removed from the office work they had been doing at headquarters.
The personnel reassignment notice from IKEA Korea received by Employee A and others.
Employee A and others argue that such reassignments unilaterally disadvantage their working conditions and are effectively measures to circumvent dismissal. Employee A’s reassignment notice states that ‘after the assignment period ends, the company does not guarantee the same duties as before the assignment or a role that pays an equivalent level of wages, and before the period ends, you must independently find and apply for opportunities in other roles.’ Employee A said, “It effectively signaled termination of employment after six months as a temporary general employee,” adding, “It created job insecurity and coerced voluntary resignations.”
They further claim the restructuring is in effect a downsizing and that it was carried out in a discriminatory way only against Korean employees. According to them, everyone who was pushed out of their existing head-office roles and reassigned to stores or call centers, or who resigned during the process, were Korean employees, with no such cases among foreign employees. Employee A and others said, “The company simultaneously presented many Korean employees with either temporary assignments at lower grades unrelated to their professional roles, or recommendations to resign under pressure via an exit package,” adding, “There are numerous cases of Korean employees who, unable to withstand the company’s pressure, took the exit package.”
Regarding these reassignments, IKEA Korea stated, “It is true that the duties differed from previous work, but this was a temporary measure rather than a final placement, intended to maintain employees’ employment and support future job-transfer opportunities.” It continued, “The separation-support program was a support option separately provided when, even after roughly three months of thoroughly reviewing internal hiring and transfer opportunities, it was difficult to find a suitable role or the employee did not wish to transfer.”
They also refuted that job transfers were sufficiently consulted on with all employees through restructuring briefings, Q&A sessions, and interviews. IKEA Korea said, “For employees who filed relief petitions with the labor relations commission as well, we held between at least four and up to nine briefings and interviews, and provided priority opportunities to apply for internal openings within the reorganized structure.”
On the restructuring itself, IKEA Korea stated, “To respond to customer demand and an omnichannel (online·offline integration) business environment, we redesigned the role of the SO organization, where about 160 of roughly 2,000 employees work; it was not pursued for the purpose of workforce reduction.”
Responding to the claim that only Korean employees were subjected to discriminatory measures, it said, “Employees who experienced role changes went through the same internal hiring and transfer procedures regardless of nationality,” adding, “In fact, there are cases among foreign employees who moved to new roles through the same procedures as other employees.” It went on, “However, most foreign employees currently working in the SO were temporarily dispatched based on experience in various countries to strengthen capabilities in the Korean market and to develop local talent,” adding, “Accordingly, roles requiring such capabilities and functions have been continuously maintained in the reorganized structure.”
