Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Precedent Relating to “Other Disciplinary Measures (Omission from Seniority-Based Promotion)” (Unfair Dismissal 602)
- Date2026/08/07 04:05
- Read 7
[Case Information]
This case is a precedent in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “other disciplinary measures (omission from seniority-based promotion).”
Adjudicating body: Busan Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae335 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026-05-20 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issues:
A. Whether omission from seniority-based promotion is subject to an application for remedy
Omission from seniority-based promotion, considering the motive and purpose of the exercise of managerial authority and the resulting disadvantage, falls under “other disciplinary measures” as prescribed in Article 23(1) of the Labor Standards Act, which is subject to an application for remedy before the Labor Relations Commission.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employee applied to the Busan Regional Labor Relations Commission for relief, claiming that the company’s omission of the employee from a seniority-based promotion, despite the employee having reached the required length of service, constituted an unfair disciplinary measure equivalent to unfair dismissal. The Commission examined both whether omission from seniority-based promotion falls within the scope of matters subject to its adjudication, and whether the grounds and procedures for the omission were justified.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issues in this case are: “In circumstances where there is a regulation on seniority-based promotion, whether an omission from such promotion can be regarded as ‘other disciplinary measures’ under Article 23(1) of the Labor Standards Act and thus be subject to an application for remedy before the Labor Relations Commission; and furthermore, whether the omission from seniority-based promotion was supported by justifiable reasons and carried out through lawful procedures.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The adjudicating panel in this case noted that omission from seniority-based promotion causes the employee a substantial disadvantage in terms of remuneration, thereby having a punitive effect similar to a wage reduction; that “other disciplinary measures” under Article 23(1) of the Labor Standards Act has been interpreted to include punitive personnel measures equivalent to dismissal, suspension from duty, disciplinary suspension, transfer, and wage reduction; and that there is an accumulation of relevant precedents recognizing omission from seniority-based promotion as subject to applications for remedy before the Labor Relations Commission.
On this basis, the panel held that omission from seniority-based promotion itself constitutes “other disciplinary measures” for which an application for remedy may be filed with the Labor Relations Commission.
However, in this case, the employer’s reasons for omitting the employee from seniority-based promotion were based on objective materials such as performance appraisal results and disciplinary records; the criteria and procedures for selecting candidates for seniority-based promotion were operated in accordance with the rules of employment and personnel regulations; and there were no circumstances indicating that the reasons and process for the omission were arbitrary or discriminatory.
Accordingly, although this case did not involve a dismissal, the Commission found that the contested omission from seniority-based promotion was supported by justifiable reasons and that there were no serious procedural defects, and therefore it could not be deemed unfair.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Employees should be aware that not only dismissal, but also personnel measures that entail substantial disadvantages in remuneration similar to wage reduction (such as omission from seniority-based promotion or deferral of automatic pay grade increases), may be treated as “other disciplinary measures” and thus be the subject of an application for remedy for unfair dismissal, etc., before the Labor Relations Commission. However, the mere fact of “not being promoted” is insufficient; it is important to systematically prepare materials that substantiate the punitive nature, the disadvantage in remuneration, comparisons with colleagues, and other objective disadvantages and their unfairness.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, when operating a seniority-based promotion system and using omission from promotion as a kind of sanction, it must be borne in mind that such measures may be evaluated as “other disciplinary measures” under the Labor Standards Act and thus become subject to adjudication by the Labor Relations Commission. The reasons for omitting an employee from seniority-based promotion should be clearly recorded and notified based on objective criteria such as performance appraisal results and prior disciplinary history, and the procedures stipulated in the regulations (such as deliberation by a personnel committee and hearing of opinions) should be faithfully followed in order to increase the likelihood that the measure will be found justified.
This Busan Regional Labor Relations Commission precedent clearly confirms that omission from seniority-based promotion is subject to applications for remedy, while at the same time reaffirming the standard that, if the reasons and procedures are legitimate, such omission will not be deemed unfair. Alongside unfair dismissal and redundancy dismissal, this case provides important practical guidance for HR and labor management. To prevent disputes before the Labor Relations Commission, employers are advised to consult with specialized institutions such as Labor Law Firm Law& in advance to review personnel systems that may have a punitive character, including seniority-based promotion and deferral of pay grade increases.
2. Matters Adjudicated
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Whether omission from seniority-based promotion is subject to an application for remedy
Omission from seniority-based promotion, considering the motive and purpose of the exercise of managerial authority and the resulting disadvantage, falls under “other disciplinary measures” as prescribed in Article 23(1) of the Labor Standards Act, which is subject to an application for remedy before the Labor Relations Commission.
B. Whether the omission from seniority-based promotion was justified (grounds, procedures, etc.)
There were justifiable reasons for the omission from seniority-based promotion, and there were no defects in the procedures; therefore, the omission from seniority-based promotion cannot be regarded as unfair.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Whether omission from seniority-based promotion is subject to an application for remedy
Omission from seniority-based promotion, considering the motive and purpose of the exercise of managerial authority and the resulting disadvantage, falls under “other disciplinary measures” as prescribed in Article 23(1) of the Labor Standards Act, which is subject to an application for remedy before the Labor Relations Commission.
B. Whether the omission from seniority-based promotion was justified (grounds, procedures, etc.)
There were justifiable reasons for the omission from seniority-based promotion, and there were no defects in the procedures; therefore, the omission from seniority-based promotion cannot be regarded as unfair. /
[See More Related Precedents]
- “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Relating to ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Relating to ‘Dismissal of Application (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’” – Date of decision: – Case number: Dismissed
- “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Relating to ‘Non-Formation of Employment Offer (Absence of Offer Letter)’” – Date of decision: – Case number: Original decision upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, other disciplinary measures (omission from seniority-based promotion), performance appraisal · poor performance, 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 the “Unfair Dismissal Precedents” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ The previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Relating to ‘Reassignment Following Workplace Bullying (Call Center Agent)’,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ A list of precedents relating to other disciplinary measures (omission from seniority-based promotion) can be viewed in the “List of Precedents Relating to Other Disciplinary Measures (Omission from Seniority-Based Promotion).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a precedent in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “other disciplinary measures (omission from seniority-based promotion).”
Adjudicating body: Busan Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae335 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026-05-20 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issues:
A. Whether omission from seniority-based promotion is subject to an application for remedy
Omission from seniority-based promotion, considering the motive and purpose of the exercise of managerial authority and the resulting disadvantage, falls under “other disciplinary measures” as prescribed in Article 23(1) of the Labor Standards Act, which is subject to an application for remedy before the Labor Relations Commission.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employee applied to the Busan Regional Labor Relations Commission for relief, claiming that the company’s omission of the employee from a seniority-based promotion, despite the employee having reached the required length of service, constituted an unfair disciplinary measure equivalent to unfair dismissal. The Commission examined both whether omission from seniority-based promotion falls within the scope of matters subject to its adjudication, and whether the grounds and procedures for the omission were justified.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issues in this case are: “In circumstances where there is a regulation on seniority-based promotion, whether an omission from such promotion can be regarded as ‘other disciplinary measures’ under Article 23(1) of the Labor Standards Act and thus be subject to an application for remedy before the Labor Relations Commission; and furthermore, whether the omission from seniority-based promotion was supported by justifiable reasons and carried out through lawful procedures.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The adjudicating panel in this case noted that omission from seniority-based promotion causes the employee a substantial disadvantage in terms of remuneration, thereby having a punitive effect similar to a wage reduction; that “other disciplinary measures” under Article 23(1) of the Labor Standards Act has been interpreted to include punitive personnel measures equivalent to dismissal, suspension from duty, disciplinary suspension, transfer, and wage reduction; and that there is an accumulation of relevant precedents recognizing omission from seniority-based promotion as subject to applications for remedy before the Labor Relations Commission.
On this basis, the panel held that omission from seniority-based promotion itself constitutes “other disciplinary measures” for which an application for remedy may be filed with the Labor Relations Commission.
However, in this case, the employer’s reasons for omitting the employee from seniority-based promotion were based on objective materials such as performance appraisal results and disciplinary records; the criteria and procedures for selecting candidates for seniority-based promotion were operated in accordance with the rules of employment and personnel regulations; and there were no circumstances indicating that the reasons and process for the omission were arbitrary or discriminatory.
Accordingly, although this case did not involve a dismissal, the Commission found that the contested omission from seniority-based promotion was supported by justifiable reasons and that there were no serious procedural defects, and therefore it could not be deemed unfair.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Employees should be aware that not only dismissal, but also personnel measures that entail substantial disadvantages in remuneration similar to wage reduction (such as omission from seniority-based promotion or deferral of automatic pay grade increases), may be treated as “other disciplinary measures” and thus be the subject of an application for remedy for unfair dismissal, etc., before the Labor Relations Commission. However, the mere fact of “not being promoted” is insufficient; it is important to systematically prepare materials that substantiate the punitive nature, the disadvantage in remuneration, comparisons with colleagues, and other objective disadvantages and their unfairness.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, when operating a seniority-based promotion system and using omission from promotion as a kind of sanction, it must be borne in mind that such measures may be evaluated as “other disciplinary measures” under the Labor Standards Act and thus become subject to adjudication by the Labor Relations Commission. The reasons for omitting an employee from seniority-based promotion should be clearly recorded and notified based on objective criteria such as performance appraisal results and prior disciplinary history, and the procedures stipulated in the regulations (such as deliberation by a personnel committee and hearing of opinions) should be faithfully followed in order to increase the likelihood that the measure will be found justified.
This Busan Regional Labor Relations Commission precedent clearly confirms that omission from seniority-based promotion is subject to applications for remedy, while at the same time reaffirming the standard that, if the reasons and procedures are legitimate, such omission will not be deemed unfair. Alongside unfair dismissal and redundancy dismissal, this case provides important practical guidance for HR and labor management. To prevent disputes before the Labor Relations Commission, employers are advised to consult with specialized institutions such as Labor Law Firm Law& in advance to review personnel systems that may have a punitive character, including seniority-based promotion and deferral of pay grade increases.
2. Matters Adjudicated
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Whether omission from seniority-based promotion is subject to an application for remedy
Omission from seniority-based promotion, considering the motive and purpose of the exercise of managerial authority and the resulting disadvantage, falls under “other disciplinary measures” as prescribed in Article 23(1) of the Labor Standards Act, which is subject to an application for remedy before the Labor Relations Commission.
B. Whether the omission from seniority-based promotion was justified (grounds, procedures, etc.)
There were justifiable reasons for the omission from seniority-based promotion, and there were no defects in the procedures; therefore, the omission from seniority-based promotion cannot be regarded as unfair.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Whether omission from seniority-based promotion is subject to an application for remedy
Omission from seniority-based promotion, considering the motive and purpose of the exercise of managerial authority and the resulting disadvantage, falls under “other disciplinary measures” as prescribed in Article 23(1) of the Labor Standards Act, which is subject to an application for remedy before the Labor Relations Commission.
B. Whether the omission from seniority-based promotion was justified (grounds, procedures, etc.)
There were justifiable reasons for the omission from seniority-based promotion, and there were no defects in the procedures; therefore, the omission from seniority-based promotion cannot be regarded as unfair. /
[See More Related Precedents]
- “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Relating to ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Relating to ‘Dismissal of Application (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’” – Date of decision: – Case number: Dismissed
- “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Relating to ‘Non-Formation of Employment Offer (Absence of Offer Letter)’” – Date of decision: – Case number: Original decision upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, other disciplinary measures (omission from seniority-based promotion), performance appraisal · poor performance, 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 the “Unfair Dismissal Precedents” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ The previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Relating to ‘Reassignment Following Workplace Bullying (Call Center Agent)’,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ A list of precedents relating to other disciplinary measures (omission from seniority-based promotion) can be viewed in the “List of Precedents Relating to Other Disciplinary Measures (Omission from Seniority-Based Promotion).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
