Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning “Workplace Harassment Separation Measure (Team Leader Placed on Standby)” (Unfair Dismissal 540)
- Date2026/07/13 04:15
- Read 18
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of a “workplace harassment separation measure (team leader placed on standby).”
Adjudicating Body: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission, Case No. 2026BuHae993 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
Decision date: 2026-05-29 · Result: Dismissed
Summary of Key Issues:
a. Whether there was a business necessity
The standby order was a separation measure requested by multiple complainants in the course of investigating and addressing workplace harassment. It was found to have business necessity in preventing secondary harm, recurrence of internal conflict, and confusion in the investigation process.
b. Whether there was any disadvantage in daily life
During the standby period, 100% of wages were paid and the team leader position was maintained, so there was no disadvantage in daily life.
c. [Truncated in original text]
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, multiple reports of workplace harassment were filed, and the company, in response to the complainants’ requests, placed the employee, who was a team leader, on standby. The issue arose as to whether this constituted unfair dismissal and/or an unfair personnel measure. The employee argued that the standby order amounted in substance to an unfair dismissal and filed an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission. The Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission, in Case No. 2026BuHae993, dismissed the application.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case was whether a “standby order” imposed as a separation measure during the investigation and handling of workplace harassment, for the purpose of protecting complainants and preventing secondary harm, constitutes a legitimate personnel measure satisfying business necessity and appropriate procedures, or whether it amounts to an abuse of managerial authority equivalent to unfair dismissal.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case held that the standby order fell within the scope of legitimate exercise of managerial authority, based on the following: it was a separation measure requested by multiple complainants in the course of the workplace harassment investigation, and thus had business necessity in preventing secondary harm, recurrence of internal conflict, and confusion in the investigation process; during the standby period, the employee received 100% of wages and retained the team leader position, so the disadvantage in daily life was not significant; and, prior to the standby order, the employer explained its necessity in a meeting with the employee, and the employee subsequently expressed willingness to accept the standby order, meaning that the employer had substantially complied with the consultation procedures required under the principle of good faith.
The dismissal disposition in this case was not found to be unfair, on the grounds that the standby order as a separation measure for workplace harassment did not cause serious disadvantage in the employee’s daily life, and, in light of the business necessity and procedures recognized by the Labor Relations Commission, did not rise to the level of unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, it is important to understand that a standby order is not automatically recognized as unfair dismissal; rather, business necessity, maintenance of wages and position, and the duration and procedures are assessed comprehensively. In particular, where multiple workplace harassment complaints have been filed and a temporary standby order is imposed as a separation measure while wages and title are maintained, the Labor Relations Commission is likely to view it as a legitimate personnel measure.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s side, when using a standby order as a separation measure in workplace harassment cases, it is important to clearly define its purpose as a “protective measure for investigation,” not as “discipline,” and to objectively explain and document the business necessity. In addition, minimizing disadvantages in daily life by maintaining wages and position, and explaining the necessity, duration, and subsequent procedures to the employee in meetings before and after the standby order, will increase the likelihood that the Labor Relations Commission or the courts will find no abuse of managerial authority.
This decision illustrates that, in situations where unfair dismissal and workplace harassment separation measures intersect, the Labor Relations Commission assesses the legitimacy of a standby order focusing on three pillars: “business necessity, disadvantage in daily life, and consultation procedures under the principle of good faith.” In similar cases, it is advisable to consult in advance with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law& to carefully organize the facts and legal arguments.
2. Matters Adjudicated
a. Case Overview and Procedural History
a. Whether there was business necessity
The standby order was a separation measure requested by multiple complainants in the course of investigating and addressing workplace harassment, and thus had business necessity in preventing secondary harm, recurrence of internal conflict, and confusion in the investigation process.
b. Whether there was any disadvantage in daily life
During the standby period, 100% of wages were paid and the team leader position was maintained, so there was no disadvantage in daily life.
c. Whether consultation procedures under the principle of good faith were observed
The employer, on the day before the standby order, explained its necessity in a meeting with the employee, and thereafter the employee conveyed to the employer that he/she would accept the standby order and expressed opinions regarding the workplace harassment reports…
3. Summary of Decision
a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
a. Whether there was business necessity
The standby order was a separation measure requested by multiple complainants in the course of investigating and addressing workplace harassment, and thus had business necessity in preventing secondary harm, recurrence of internal conflict, and confusion in the investigation process.
b. Whether there was any disadvantage in daily life
During the standby period, 100% of wages were paid and the team leader position was maintained, so there was no disadvantage in daily life.
c. Whether consultation procedures under the principle of good faith were observed
The employer, on the day before the standby order, explained its necessity in a meeting with the employee, and thereafter the employee conveyed to the employer that he/she would accept the standby order and expressed opinions regarding the workplace harassment reports… /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Withdrawal of Resignation Intent (Electronically Approved Resignation Letter)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Disciplinary Severity and Procedural Defects (221 Instances of Tardiness)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, workplace harassment separation measure (team leader placed on standby), workplace harassment, others, 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 Labor Law Firm Law&’s “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series.
※ The previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Withdrawal of Resignation Intent (Electronically Approved Resignation Letter)’,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to workplace harassment separation measures (team leader placed on standby) can be viewed together at “List of Decisions Related to Workplace Harassment Separation Measure (Team Leader Placed on Standby).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of a “workplace harassment separation measure (team leader placed on standby).”
Adjudicating Body: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission, Case No. 2026BuHae993 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
Decision date: 2026-05-29 · Result: Dismissed
Summary of Key Issues:
a. Whether there was a business necessity
The standby order was a separation measure requested by multiple complainants in the course of investigating and addressing workplace harassment. It was found to have business necessity in preventing secondary harm, recurrence of internal conflict, and confusion in the investigation process.
b. Whether there was any disadvantage in daily life
During the standby period, 100% of wages were paid and the team leader position was maintained, so there was no disadvantage in daily life.
c. [Truncated in original text]
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, multiple reports of workplace harassment were filed, and the company, in response to the complainants’ requests, placed the employee, who was a team leader, on standby. The issue arose as to whether this constituted unfair dismissal and/or an unfair personnel measure. The employee argued that the standby order amounted in substance to an unfair dismissal and filed an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission. The Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission, in Case No. 2026BuHae993, dismissed the application.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case was whether a “standby order” imposed as a separation measure during the investigation and handling of workplace harassment, for the purpose of protecting complainants and preventing secondary harm, constitutes a legitimate personnel measure satisfying business necessity and appropriate procedures, or whether it amounts to an abuse of managerial authority equivalent to unfair dismissal.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case held that the standby order fell within the scope of legitimate exercise of managerial authority, based on the following: it was a separation measure requested by multiple complainants in the course of the workplace harassment investigation, and thus had business necessity in preventing secondary harm, recurrence of internal conflict, and confusion in the investigation process; during the standby period, the employee received 100% of wages and retained the team leader position, so the disadvantage in daily life was not significant; and, prior to the standby order, the employer explained its necessity in a meeting with the employee, and the employee subsequently expressed willingness to accept the standby order, meaning that the employer had substantially complied with the consultation procedures required under the principle of good faith.
The dismissal disposition in this case was not found to be unfair, on the grounds that the standby order as a separation measure for workplace harassment did not cause serious disadvantage in the employee’s daily life, and, in light of the business necessity and procedures recognized by the Labor Relations Commission, did not rise to the level of unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, it is important to understand that a standby order is not automatically recognized as unfair dismissal; rather, business necessity, maintenance of wages and position, and the duration and procedures are assessed comprehensively. In particular, where multiple workplace harassment complaints have been filed and a temporary standby order is imposed as a separation measure while wages and title are maintained, the Labor Relations Commission is likely to view it as a legitimate personnel measure.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s side, when using a standby order as a separation measure in workplace harassment cases, it is important to clearly define its purpose as a “protective measure for investigation,” not as “discipline,” and to objectively explain and document the business necessity. In addition, minimizing disadvantages in daily life by maintaining wages and position, and explaining the necessity, duration, and subsequent procedures to the employee in meetings before and after the standby order, will increase the likelihood that the Labor Relations Commission or the courts will find no abuse of managerial authority.
This decision illustrates that, in situations where unfair dismissal and workplace harassment separation measures intersect, the Labor Relations Commission assesses the legitimacy of a standby order focusing on three pillars: “business necessity, disadvantage in daily life, and consultation procedures under the principle of good faith.” In similar cases, it is advisable to consult in advance with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law& to carefully organize the facts and legal arguments.
2. Matters Adjudicated
a. Case Overview and Procedural History
a. Whether there was business necessity
The standby order was a separation measure requested by multiple complainants in the course of investigating and addressing workplace harassment, and thus had business necessity in preventing secondary harm, recurrence of internal conflict, and confusion in the investigation process.
b. Whether there was any disadvantage in daily life
During the standby period, 100% of wages were paid and the team leader position was maintained, so there was no disadvantage in daily life.
c. Whether consultation procedures under the principle of good faith were observed
The employer, on the day before the standby order, explained its necessity in a meeting with the employee, and thereafter the employee conveyed to the employer that he/she would accept the standby order and expressed opinions regarding the workplace harassment reports…
3. Summary of Decision
a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
a. Whether there was business necessity
The standby order was a separation measure requested by multiple complainants in the course of investigating and addressing workplace harassment, and thus had business necessity in preventing secondary harm, recurrence of internal conflict, and confusion in the investigation process.
b. Whether there was any disadvantage in daily life
During the standby period, 100% of wages were paid and the team leader position was maintained, so there was no disadvantage in daily life.
c. Whether consultation procedures under the principle of good faith were observed
The employer, on the day before the standby order, explained its necessity in a meeting with the employee, and thereafter the employee conveyed to the employer that he/she would accept the standby order and expressed opinions regarding the workplace harassment reports… /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Withdrawal of Resignation Intent (Electronically Approved Resignation Letter)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Disciplinary Severity and Procedural Defects (221 Instances of Tardiness)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, workplace harassment separation measure (team leader placed on standby), workplace harassment, others, 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 Labor Law Firm Law&’s “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series.
※ The previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Withdrawal of Resignation Intent (Electronically Approved Resignation Letter)’,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to workplace harassment separation measures (team leader placed on standby) can be viewed together at “List of Decisions Related to Workplace Harassment Separation Measure (Team Leader Placed on Standby).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
