Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning “Change of Working Hours (Employment Contract Takes Priority)” (Unfair Dismissal 26)
- Date2026/01/03 14:31
- Read 189
[Summary]
In connection with “change of working hours (employment contract takes priority),” an unfair dismissal relief application was filed, and a decision was rendered in which the employee prevailed. This post shares that decision and its legal implications.
In this post as well, please consider together the standards for determining unfair dismissal, the practical operation of the Labor Relations Commission, and HR–labor issues that Labor Law Firm Law& encounters in the field.
In connection with “change of working hours (employment contract takes priority),” an unfair dismissal relief application was filed, and a decision was rendered in which the employee prevailed. This post shares that decision and its legal implications.
In this post as well, please consider together the standards for determining unfair dismissal, the practical operation of the Labor Relations Commission, and HR–labor issues that Labor Law Firm Law& encounters in the field.
1. Legal Implications
The issue in this case was whether an employer may unilaterally change the prescribed working hours that have been agreed and fixed in an employment contract, and whether disciplinary action based on an employee’s refusal to accept such change is justified.
The decision panel in this case noted that, from some time in 2019, the prescribed working hours had been changed to 12:00–20:00 by agreement between the parties and work had in fact been performed on that basis; that an employment contract explicitly reflecting these terms had been newly executed as the dispositive document; and that, even if some business necessity for the order to change working hours could be acknowledged, it was difficult to disregard the effect of the employment contract, and the provision in the rules of employment concerning the authority to change working hours could not be regarded as taking precedence over an individual employment contract that is more favorable to the employee.
Despite the employer’s argument that the company’s authority to adjust working hours based on the rules of employment must be recognized, and that the order adjusting working hours, as an exercise of managerial prerogative, should be viewed as a legitimate work instruction, the panel held as follows.
The dismissal in this case was found to be unfair on the grounds that the personnel order unilaterally changing the prescribed working hours without the employee’s consent to the change of working hours had itself lost legitimacy, and that disciplinary action based on refusal to comply with such a void personnel order lacked just cause for discipline.
This case reconfirms that prescribed working hours fixed by an employment contract, absent special circumstances, take precedence over a general right of change under the rules of employment, and that any change constitutes a disadvantageous change in working conditions requiring the employee’s consent. In practice, even where a personnel order such as transfer, reassignment, or adjustment of working hours satisfies business necessity, if there is no contractual authority underlying it or if it conflicts with the dispositive document, the personnel order is void, and a legitimate refusal to comply cannot constitute grounds for discipline. As with redundancy dismissals, it is essential, before considering the employer’s discretionary judgment, to first examine the “hierarchy between contracts and internal regulations” and whether “employee consent is required,” in order to ensure legally sound HR and labor management.
2. Decision
Since some time in 2019, the prescribed working hours had been changed to 12:00–20:00 by agreement between the parties, and an employment contract had been executed on the basis of these working conditions. Even if some business necessity for the employer’s order to change working hours could be acknowledged, it is difficult to disregard the effect of the employment contract as the dispositive document, and the provision in the rules of employment serving as the basis for the authority to change working hours cannot be regarded as taking precedence over the employment contract, which as a dispositive document contains conditions favorable to the employee. Therefore, ordering a change of working hours without the employee’s consent to such change cannot be viewed as a legitimate exercise of managerial prerogative, and imposing a suspension from duty on the grounds of refusal to comply with a personnel order adjusting working hours constitutes unfair discipline for which the just cause for discipline is difficult to recognize. Accordingly, there is no need to further examine the level of discipline or the disciplinary procedures.
3. Gist of the Decision
Since some time in 2019, the prescribed working hours had been changed to 12:00–20:00 by agreement between the parties, and an employment contract had been executed on the basis of these working conditions. Even if some business necessity for the employer’s order to change working hours could be acknowledged, it is difficult to disregard the effect of the employment contract as the dispositive document, and the provision in the rules of employment serving as the basis for the authority to change working hours cannot be regarded as taking precedence over the employment contract, which as a dispositive document contains conditions favorable to the employee. Therefore, ordering a change of working hours without the employee’s consent to such change cannot be viewed as a legitimate exercise of managerial prerogative, and imposing a suspension from duty on the grounds of refusal to comply with a personnel order adjusting working hours constitutes unfair discipline for which the just cause for discipline is difficult to recognize. Accordingly, there is no need to further examine the level of discipline or the disciplinary procedures. /
※ This post is one in the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ Other decisions related to “change of working hours (employment contract takes priority)” can be found in the search results for /kor/cs/board1?sel_search=제목&txt_search=%EA%B7%BC%EB%A1%9C%EC%8B%9C%EA%B0%84%EB%B3%80%EA%B2%BD%28%EA%B7%BC%EB%A1%9C%EA%B3%84%EC%95%BD%EC%84%9C%20%EC%9A%B0%EC%84%A0%29.
In connection with “change of working hours (employment contract takes priority),” an unfair dismissal relief application was filed, and a decision was rendered in which the employee prevailed. This post shares that decision and its legal implications.
In this post as well, please consider together the standards for determining unfair dismissal, the practical operation of the Labor Relations Commission, and HR–labor issues that Labor Law Firm Law& encounters in the field.
In connection with “change of working hours (employment contract takes priority),” an unfair dismissal relief application was filed, and a decision was rendered in which the employee prevailed. This post shares that decision and its legal implications.
In this post as well, please consider together the standards for determining unfair dismissal, the practical operation of the Labor Relations Commission, and HR–labor issues that Labor Law Firm Law& encounters in the field.
1. Legal Implications
The issue in this case was whether an employer may unilaterally change the prescribed working hours that have been agreed and fixed in an employment contract, and whether disciplinary action based on an employee’s refusal to accept such change is justified.
The decision panel in this case noted that, from some time in 2019, the prescribed working hours had been changed to 12:00–20:00 by agreement between the parties and work had in fact been performed on that basis; that an employment contract explicitly reflecting these terms had been newly executed as the dispositive document; and that, even if some business necessity for the order to change working hours could be acknowledged, it was difficult to disregard the effect of the employment contract, and the provision in the rules of employment concerning the authority to change working hours could not be regarded as taking precedence over an individual employment contract that is more favorable to the employee.
Despite the employer’s argument that the company’s authority to adjust working hours based on the rules of employment must be recognized, and that the order adjusting working hours, as an exercise of managerial prerogative, should be viewed as a legitimate work instruction, the panel held as follows.
The dismissal in this case was found to be unfair on the grounds that the personnel order unilaterally changing the prescribed working hours without the employee’s consent to the change of working hours had itself lost legitimacy, and that disciplinary action based on refusal to comply with such a void personnel order lacked just cause for discipline.
This case reconfirms that prescribed working hours fixed by an employment contract, absent special circumstances, take precedence over a general right of change under the rules of employment, and that any change constitutes a disadvantageous change in working conditions requiring the employee’s consent. In practice, even where a personnel order such as transfer, reassignment, or adjustment of working hours satisfies business necessity, if there is no contractual authority underlying it or if it conflicts with the dispositive document, the personnel order is void, and a legitimate refusal to comply cannot constitute grounds for discipline. As with redundancy dismissals, it is essential, before considering the employer’s discretionary judgment, to first examine the “hierarchy between contracts and internal regulations” and whether “employee consent is required,” in order to ensure legally sound HR and labor management.
2. Decision
Since some time in 2019, the prescribed working hours had been changed to 12:00–20:00 by agreement between the parties, and an employment contract had been executed on the basis of these working conditions. Even if some business necessity for the employer’s order to change working hours could be acknowledged, it is difficult to disregard the effect of the employment contract as the dispositive document, and the provision in the rules of employment serving as the basis for the authority to change working hours cannot be regarded as taking precedence over the employment contract, which as a dispositive document contains conditions favorable to the employee. Therefore, ordering a change of working hours without the employee’s consent to such change cannot be viewed as a legitimate exercise of managerial prerogative, and imposing a suspension from duty on the grounds of refusal to comply with a personnel order adjusting working hours constitutes unfair discipline for which the just cause for discipline is difficult to recognize. Accordingly, there is no need to further examine the level of discipline or the disciplinary procedures.
3. Gist of the Decision
Since some time in 2019, the prescribed working hours had been changed to 12:00–20:00 by agreement between the parties, and an employment contract had been executed on the basis of these working conditions. Even if some business necessity for the employer’s order to change working hours could be acknowledged, it is difficult to disregard the effect of the employment contract as the dispositive document, and the provision in the rules of employment serving as the basis for the authority to change working hours cannot be regarded as taking precedence over the employment contract, which as a dispositive document contains conditions favorable to the employee. Therefore, ordering a change of working hours without the employee’s consent to such change cannot be viewed as a legitimate exercise of managerial prerogative, and imposing a suspension from duty on the grounds of refusal to comply with a personnel order adjusting working hours constitutes unfair discipline for which the just cause for discipline is difficult to recognize. Accordingly, there is no need to further examine the level of discipline or the disciplinary procedures. /
※ This post is one in the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ Other decisions related to “change of working hours (employment contract takes priority)” can be found in the search results for /kor/cs/board1?sel_search=제목&txt_search=%EA%B7%BC%EB%A1%9C%EC%8B%9C%EA%B0%84%EB%B3%80%EA%B2%BD%28%EA%B7%BC%EB%A1%9C%EA%B3%84%EC%95%BD%EC%84%9C%20%EC%9A%B0%EC%84%A0%29.
