Corporate trends / Performance record
‘Abuse of Discretion (Protective Measures Against Workplace Harassment)’ and Unfair Dismissal Decision (Unfair Dismissal 571)
- Date2026/07/25 04:16
- Read 13
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “abuse of discretion (protective measures against workplace harassment).”
Decision body: Gyeongbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae363 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026-05-22 · Case outcome: Dismissed
Summary of key issue: The personnel order (support work order) was issued as part of protective measures for victims following a workplace harassment report and as a provisional and temporary measure for investigating the harassment and carrying out follow-up procedures, and thus its business necessity was recognized. At the same time, the disadvantages in the employee’s daily life did not significantly exceed the level ordinarily to be borne by workers, so it could not be viewed as an abuse of discretion.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the issue was whether a personnel order (support work order) issued by the employer after a workplace harassment report, for the purpose of protecting the victimized employees and conducting the investigation and follow-up procedures, constituted an unfair dismissal.
The employee claimed that the personnel order caused disadvantages in his/her daily life and therefore amounted to an unfair personnel measure subject to review by the Labor Relations Commission, and filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal. The Gyeongbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the application.
Through this decision, Labor Law Firm Law& examines the criteria for determining unfair dismissal in the context of personnel orders issued in situations involving workplace harassment.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is:
“Whether a support work order issued after a workplace harassment report, for the purpose of protecting the victims and conducting fact-finding, constitutes an unfair dismissal equivalent to a dismissal under the Labor Standards Act or an abuse of discretion.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The decision panel in this case noted that the personnel order (support work order) was part of the protective measures for victims following a workplace harassment report, that it was implemented provisionally and temporarily for the investigation of the harassment and follow-up measures, and that, where redeployment of labor is necessary for business operations, considerable discretion is recognized in personnel orders.
In light of these factors, the panel found that the support work order was justified by business necessity, whereas the disadvantages to the employee’s wages, working conditions, and daily life did not significantly exceed the level ordinarily to be borne by workers. There were no special circumstances indicating that the exercise of personnel authority violated the Labor Standards Act or amounted to an abuse of rights. Accordingly, the order could not be regarded as an unfair personnel measure constituting an abuse of discretion.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, not every personnel order issued by the company after a workplace harassment report constitutes an unfair dismissal. The assessment will differ depending on whether the measure is a provisional measure for protection and investigation, and whether the disadvantages in daily life exceed the range that can ordinarily be tolerated.
However, if the personnel order results in a substantial reduction in wages, or if the employee is effectively placed on standby for an extended period, thereby suffering disadvantages that are substantively equivalent to dismissal, it is advisable to actively consider filing an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission to contest whether there has been an unfair dismissal or abuse of rights.
In addition, it is important to secure and retain the company’s explanations and documents (personnel order, notice of investigation results, etc.) to clarify whether the personnel measure related to the workplace harassment report is a protective measure or a punitive sanction. Such materials will serve as important evidence in any subsequent dispute, so related documents should be systematically preserved.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, when workplace harassment is reported, certain personnel measures may be necessary to protect the victims and ensure a fair investigation. However, the “purpose, duration, and content” of such measures should be clearly designed so that they do not function as disciplinary action or a de facto redundancy dismissal.
In particular, it is important to document the business necessity and the need to protect the victims, and to adjust any changes in wages, place of work, and duties resulting from the order so that they do not exceed the range that workers can ordinarily be expected to bear.
Furthermore, if the scope and procedures of “temporary personnel measures for victim protection” are specifically stipulated in the personnel regulations and the workplace harassment response manual, this can be of great assistance in having the legitimacy of such measures recognized when the Labor Relations Commission reviews whether there has been an abuse of discretion.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
The personnel order (support work order) was issued as part of the protective measures for victims following a workplace harassment report and as a provisional and temporary measure for investigating the harassment and carrying out follow-up procedures, and thus its business necessity was recognized. At the same time, the disadvantages in the employee’s daily life did not significantly exceed the level ordinarily to be borne by workers, so it could not be viewed as an abuse of discretion.
3. Gist of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The personnel order (support work order) was issued as part of the protective measures for victims following a workplace harassment report and as a provisional and temporary measure for investigating the harassment and carrying out follow-up procedures, and thus its business necessity was recognized. At the same time, the disadvantages in the employee’s daily life did not significantly exceed the level ordinarily to be borne by workers, so it could not be viewed as an abuse of discretion. /
[Further Related Decisions]
- ‘Party Standing (Subcontracting to an Affiliated Company)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision
- ‘Dismissal of Application (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision – Date of decision: – Case number: Dismissed
- ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, abuse of discretion (protective measures against workplace harassment), workplace harassment, 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, “‘Party Standing (Subcontracting to an Affiliated Company)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to abuse of discretion (protective measures against workplace harassment) can be found under “List of Decisions Related to Abuse of Discretion (Protective Measures Against Workplace Harassment).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
Decision body: Gyeongbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae363 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026-05-22 · Case outcome: Dismissed
Summary of key issue: The personnel order (support work order) was issued as part of protective measures for victims following a workplace harassment report and as a provisional and temporary measure for investigating the harassment and carrying out follow-up procedures, and thus its business necessity was recognized. At the same time, the disadvantages in the employee’s daily life did not significantly exceed the level ordinarily to be borne by workers, so it could not be viewed as an abuse of discretion.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the issue was whether a personnel order (support work order) issued by the employer after a workplace harassment report, for the purpose of protecting the victimized employees and conducting the investigation and follow-up procedures, constituted an unfair dismissal.
The employee claimed that the personnel order caused disadvantages in his/her daily life and therefore amounted to an unfair personnel measure subject to review by the Labor Relations Commission, and filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal. The Gyeongbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the application.
Through this decision, Labor Law Firm Law& examines the criteria for determining unfair dismissal in the context of personnel orders issued in situations involving workplace harassment.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is:
“Whether a support work order issued after a workplace harassment report, for the purpose of protecting the victims and conducting fact-finding, constitutes an unfair dismissal equivalent to a dismissal under the Labor Standards Act or an abuse of discretion.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The decision panel in this case noted that the personnel order (support work order) was part of the protective measures for victims following a workplace harassment report, that it was implemented provisionally and temporarily for the investigation of the harassment and follow-up measures, and that, where redeployment of labor is necessary for business operations, considerable discretion is recognized in personnel orders.
In light of these factors, the panel found that the support work order was justified by business necessity, whereas the disadvantages to the employee’s wages, working conditions, and daily life did not significantly exceed the level ordinarily to be borne by workers. There were no special circumstances indicating that the exercise of personnel authority violated the Labor Standards Act or amounted to an abuse of rights. Accordingly, the order could not be regarded as an unfair personnel measure constituting an abuse of discretion.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, not every personnel order issued by the company after a workplace harassment report constitutes an unfair dismissal. The assessment will differ depending on whether the measure is a provisional measure for protection and investigation, and whether the disadvantages in daily life exceed the range that can ordinarily be tolerated.
However, if the personnel order results in a substantial reduction in wages, or if the employee is effectively placed on standby for an extended period, thereby suffering disadvantages that are substantively equivalent to dismissal, it is advisable to actively consider filing an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission to contest whether there has been an unfair dismissal or abuse of rights.
In addition, it is important to secure and retain the company’s explanations and documents (personnel order, notice of investigation results, etc.) to clarify whether the personnel measure related to the workplace harassment report is a protective measure or a punitive sanction. Such materials will serve as important evidence in any subsequent dispute, so related documents should be systematically preserved.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, when workplace harassment is reported, certain personnel measures may be necessary to protect the victims and ensure a fair investigation. However, the “purpose, duration, and content” of such measures should be clearly designed so that they do not function as disciplinary action or a de facto redundancy dismissal.
In particular, it is important to document the business necessity and the need to protect the victims, and to adjust any changes in wages, place of work, and duties resulting from the order so that they do not exceed the range that workers can ordinarily be expected to bear.
Furthermore, if the scope and procedures of “temporary personnel measures for victim protection” are specifically stipulated in the personnel regulations and the workplace harassment response manual, this can be of great assistance in having the legitimacy of such measures recognized when the Labor Relations Commission reviews whether there has been an abuse of discretion.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
The personnel order (support work order) was issued as part of the protective measures for victims following a workplace harassment report and as a provisional and temporary measure for investigating the harassment and carrying out follow-up procedures, and thus its business necessity was recognized. At the same time, the disadvantages in the employee’s daily life did not significantly exceed the level ordinarily to be borne by workers, so it could not be viewed as an abuse of discretion.
3. Gist of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The personnel order (support work order) was issued as part of the protective measures for victims following a workplace harassment report and as a provisional and temporary measure for investigating the harassment and carrying out follow-up procedures, and thus its business necessity was recognized. At the same time, the disadvantages in the employee’s daily life did not significantly exceed the level ordinarily to be borne by workers, so it could not be viewed as an abuse of discretion. /
[Further Related Decisions]
- ‘Party Standing (Subcontracting to an Affiliated Company)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision
- ‘Dismissal of Application (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision – Date of decision: – Case number: Dismissed
- ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, abuse of discretion (protective measures against workplace harassment), workplace harassment, 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, “‘Party Standing (Subcontracting to an Affiliated Company)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to abuse of discretion (protective measures against workplace harassment) can be found under “List of Decisions Related to Abuse of Discretion (Protective Measures Against Workplace Harassment).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
