Corporate trends / Performance record
Retaliatory Personnel Action (Omission from Promotion After Industrial Accident Claim) – Unfair Dismissal Decision (Unfair Dismissal 525)
- Date2026/07/06 04:10
- Read 40
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “retaliatory personnel action (omission from promotion after filing an industrial accident claim).”
Decision body: Gyeongnam Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae363 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026-06-02 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issues: The worker failed to meet the promotion criteria score; even when reviewing the overall promotion status and the allocation of promotion points, there were no circumstances indicating that the order of promotion had been altered or that the promotion results were erroneous; the job suitability evaluation was a system that had been in operation from before; and there were no objective circumstances confirming that the adjustment of the performance appraisal grade constituted a retaliatory measure for filing an industrial accident claim. Taking these factors together, the omission from promotion was not found to be a retaliatory measure for the industrial accident claim, nor a personnel action that departed from the scope of ordinary personnel measures based on the promotion review results.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This unfair dismissal case concerns an application for remedy filed with the Labor Relations Commission over whether a worker’s omission from promotion after filing an industrial accident claim constituted an unfair personnel measure. The Gyeongnam Regional Labor Relations Commission comprehensively reviewed the promotion points, overall promotion status, job suitability evaluation, and the process of adjusting performance appraisal grades to determine whether the employer’s actions fell within the scope of its personnel authority.
Ⅱ. Issues in Dispute
The issue in this case is whether “the omission from promotion of a worker who was excluded from promotion after filing an industrial accident claim constitutes a retaliatory personnel measure that the Labor Relations Commission should correct as an unfair personnel action, or whether it falls within the scope of ordinary personnel measures based on the outcome of the promotion review.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The decision panel in this case noted that the worker failed to meet the promotion criteria score set by the company; that even when comparing the promotion points and order of all promoted employees, it was difficult to see that the promotion order of any particular worker had been reversed or that the results had been distorted; and that the job suitability evaluation system in question was not newly introduced but had been in operation from before.
In addition, there were no objective circumstances or materials confirming that the adjustment of the performance appraisal grade was retaliatory for filing an industrial accident claim; nor was it easy to regard the promotion system itself as designed to discriminate between union members and non-union members, or between industrial accident claimants and non-claimants. Taking these factors together,
although this case did not involve a dismissal disposition itself, the personnel measure of omission from promotion associated with it was not found to be a retaliatory personnel measure for the industrial accident claim, nor an unfair personnel measure that exceeded the scope of ordinary personnel measures based on the promotion review results.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective)
If a worker is repeatedly denied promotion after filing an industrial accident claim, mere suspicion is not enough. It is necessary to collect objective materials—such as the promotion criteria, the worker’s own and colleagues’ scores, and the history of past performance appraisals—and specifically prove circumstances indicating “retaliatory discrimination.” If job suitability evaluations or performance appraisals suddenly deteriorate, the worker should request evaluation sheets, comments, and comparative data with past evaluations to self-check the consistency and reasonableness of the evaluations.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
When designing promotion and performance appraisal systems, the company should clearly document the criteria, scoring, and procedures, and in actual operation manage the system so that promotion points, rankings, and reasons for non-promotion for all employees can be explained objectively. In particular, where personnel disadvantages arise after protected activities such as filing an industrial accident claim, engaging in union activities, or raising grievances, the company should preemptively organize evaluation materials, minutes of meetings, and evidence of consistent system operation so that it can prove that the measures were legitimate exercises of personnel authority based on work ability and performance.
This type of decision, unlike those involving unfair dismissal or redundancy dismissal, clearly shows that in disputes over omission from promotion or retaliatory personnel measures, “the reasonableness of the system itself” and “the objectivity and consistency of its concrete application” are the core review standards. It is important to note that, through consultation with a specialized institution such as Labor Law Firm Law&, organizing evaluation systems and evidence management from the early stages is very important for both preventing and defending against disputes.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
Taking into account that the worker failed to meet the promotion criteria score; that, even upon reviewing the overall promotion status and the allocation of promotion points, there were no circumstances indicating that the order of promotion had been changed or that the promotion results were erroneous; that the job suitability evaluation was a system that had been in operation from before; and that no objective circumstances were confirmed that would indicate that the adjustment of the performance appraisal grade was a retaliatory measure for filing an industrial accident claim, it was determined that the omission from promotion was not a retaliatory measure for the industrial accident claim, nor an unfair personnel measure that departed from the scope of ordinary personnel measures based on the promotion review results.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
Taking into account that the worker failed to meet the promotion criteria score; that, even upon reviewing the overall promotion status and the allocation of promotion points, there were no circumstances indicating that the order of promotion had been changed or that the promotion results were erroneous; that the job suitability evaluation was a system that had been in operation from before; and that no objective circumstances were confirmed that would indicate that the adjustment of the performance appraisal grade was a retaliatory measure for filing an industrial accident claim, it was determined that the omission from promotion was not a retaliatory measure for the industrial accident claim, nor an unfair personnel measure that departed from the scope of ordinary personnel measures based on the promotion review results. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “‘Dismissal of Application (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Decision date: - Case result: Dismissed
- “‘Non-Formation of Employment Contract (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Decision date: - Case result: First-instance decision upheld
- “‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, retaliatory personnel action (omission from promotion after industrial accident claim), performance evaluation · poor performance, Labor Law Firm Law&, large labor law firm, Samseong-dong labor law firm, Samseong Station labor law firm, Gangnam labor law firm
※ This article is part of the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ The previous article, “‘Disciplinary Sanction Level (Disclosure and Mockery of Grievance Report)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to retaliatory personnel action (omission from promotion after industrial accident claim) can be viewed together in the “Retaliatory Personnel Action (Omission from Promotion After Industrial Accident Claim) Related Decisions” list.
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “retaliatory personnel action (omission from promotion after filing an industrial accident claim).”
Decision body: Gyeongnam Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae363 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026-06-02 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issues: The worker failed to meet the promotion criteria score; even when reviewing the overall promotion status and the allocation of promotion points, there were no circumstances indicating that the order of promotion had been altered or that the promotion results were erroneous; the job suitability evaluation was a system that had been in operation from before; and there were no objective circumstances confirming that the adjustment of the performance appraisal grade constituted a retaliatory measure for filing an industrial accident claim. Taking these factors together, the omission from promotion was not found to be a retaliatory measure for the industrial accident claim, nor a personnel action that departed from the scope of ordinary personnel measures based on the promotion review results.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This unfair dismissal case concerns an application for remedy filed with the Labor Relations Commission over whether a worker’s omission from promotion after filing an industrial accident claim constituted an unfair personnel measure. The Gyeongnam Regional Labor Relations Commission comprehensively reviewed the promotion points, overall promotion status, job suitability evaluation, and the process of adjusting performance appraisal grades to determine whether the employer’s actions fell within the scope of its personnel authority.
Ⅱ. Issues in Dispute
The issue in this case is whether “the omission from promotion of a worker who was excluded from promotion after filing an industrial accident claim constitutes a retaliatory personnel measure that the Labor Relations Commission should correct as an unfair personnel action, or whether it falls within the scope of ordinary personnel measures based on the outcome of the promotion review.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The decision panel in this case noted that the worker failed to meet the promotion criteria score set by the company; that even when comparing the promotion points and order of all promoted employees, it was difficult to see that the promotion order of any particular worker had been reversed or that the results had been distorted; and that the job suitability evaluation system in question was not newly introduced but had been in operation from before.
In addition, there were no objective circumstances or materials confirming that the adjustment of the performance appraisal grade was retaliatory for filing an industrial accident claim; nor was it easy to regard the promotion system itself as designed to discriminate between union members and non-union members, or between industrial accident claimants and non-claimants. Taking these factors together,
although this case did not involve a dismissal disposition itself, the personnel measure of omission from promotion associated with it was not found to be a retaliatory personnel measure for the industrial accident claim, nor an unfair personnel measure that exceeded the scope of ordinary personnel measures based on the promotion review results.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective)
If a worker is repeatedly denied promotion after filing an industrial accident claim, mere suspicion is not enough. It is necessary to collect objective materials—such as the promotion criteria, the worker’s own and colleagues’ scores, and the history of past performance appraisals—and specifically prove circumstances indicating “retaliatory discrimination.” If job suitability evaluations or performance appraisals suddenly deteriorate, the worker should request evaluation sheets, comments, and comparative data with past evaluations to self-check the consistency and reasonableness of the evaluations.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
When designing promotion and performance appraisal systems, the company should clearly document the criteria, scoring, and procedures, and in actual operation manage the system so that promotion points, rankings, and reasons for non-promotion for all employees can be explained objectively. In particular, where personnel disadvantages arise after protected activities such as filing an industrial accident claim, engaging in union activities, or raising grievances, the company should preemptively organize evaluation materials, minutes of meetings, and evidence of consistent system operation so that it can prove that the measures were legitimate exercises of personnel authority based on work ability and performance.
This type of decision, unlike those involving unfair dismissal or redundancy dismissal, clearly shows that in disputes over omission from promotion or retaliatory personnel measures, “the reasonableness of the system itself” and “the objectivity and consistency of its concrete application” are the core review standards. It is important to note that, through consultation with a specialized institution such as Labor Law Firm Law&, organizing evaluation systems and evidence management from the early stages is very important for both preventing and defending against disputes.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
Taking into account that the worker failed to meet the promotion criteria score; that, even upon reviewing the overall promotion status and the allocation of promotion points, there were no circumstances indicating that the order of promotion had been changed or that the promotion results were erroneous; that the job suitability evaluation was a system that had been in operation from before; and that no objective circumstances were confirmed that would indicate that the adjustment of the performance appraisal grade was a retaliatory measure for filing an industrial accident claim, it was determined that the omission from promotion was not a retaliatory measure for the industrial accident claim, nor an unfair personnel measure that departed from the scope of ordinary personnel measures based on the promotion review results.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
Taking into account that the worker failed to meet the promotion criteria score; that, even upon reviewing the overall promotion status and the allocation of promotion points, there were no circumstances indicating that the order of promotion had been changed or that the promotion results were erroneous; that the job suitability evaluation was a system that had been in operation from before; and that no objective circumstances were confirmed that would indicate that the adjustment of the performance appraisal grade was a retaliatory measure for filing an industrial accident claim, it was determined that the omission from promotion was not a retaliatory measure for the industrial accident claim, nor an unfair personnel measure that departed from the scope of ordinary personnel measures based on the promotion review results. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “‘Dismissal of Application (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Decision date: - Case result: Dismissed
- “‘Non-Formation of Employment Contract (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Decision date: - Case result: First-instance decision upheld
- “‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, retaliatory personnel action (omission from promotion after industrial accident claim), performance evaluation · poor performance, Labor Law Firm Law&, large labor law firm, Samseong-dong labor law firm, Samseong Station labor law firm, Gangnam labor law firm
※ This article is part of the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ The previous article, “‘Disciplinary Sanction Level (Disclosure and Mockery of Grievance Report)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to retaliatory personnel action (omission from promotion after industrial accident claim) can be viewed together in the “Retaliatory Personnel Action (Omission from Promotion After Industrial Accident Claim) Related Decisions” list.
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
