Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Decision on “Abuse of Managerial Discretion (Unpaid Work Exclusion of Care Worker)” (Unfair Dismissal 142)
- Date2026/01/24 04:05
- Read 255
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employee prevailed in full on the issue of “abuse of managerial discretion (unpaid work exclusion of care worker).”
Decision-making body: Jeju Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae233 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2025.12.30 · Case outcome: Employee’s claim fully upheld
Summary of key issues:
A. Existence of a remedial interest
The employer excluded the employee from care worker duties from 5 November 2025 to 30 November 2025 and did not pay base salary or any other wages during that period.
1. Legal Implications
In this unfair dismissal case, the Labor Relations Commission examined both the legitimacy of a personnel order imposing unpaid exclusion from work on a care worker and the existence of a remedial interest. Labor Law Firm Law& frequently receives consultations on similar types of cases.
The Commission focused on whether the measure was not a mere transfer or adjustment of work schedule, but in substance a personnel action causing an economic disadvantage even more severe than suspension from duty, and whether a remedial interest could still be recognized in respect of a work exclusion period that had already elapsed.
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employer completely excluded the employee, a care worker, from care work for approximately one month, from 5 November 2025 to 30 November 2025, and did not pay any base salary or other wages during that period.
While the work exclusion was still ongoing, on 28 November 2025 the employee filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission for a remedy for unfair dismissal (unfair personnel order). By the time of the Commission’s decision, the work exclusion period had already passed, and thus both the legitimacy of the personnel order and the existence of a remedial interest were in dispute.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issues in this case are:
“Whether, even after the work exclusion period has already elapsed, there still exists a remedial interest in seeking the cancellation of a personnel order imposing unpaid work exclusion, and whether a complete unpaid exclusion from work, justified on the ground of separating the employee from a resident, constitutes a legitimate exercise of the employer’s managerial prerogative.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case noted that:
- During the period of exclusion from work, the employer did not pay base salary or other wages, thereby clearly causing an economic disadvantage to the employee;
- At the time of the application for remedy, the work exclusion was still in progress, and even as of the time of the decision, the non-payment of wages resulting from the work exclusion had not been remedied;
- To achieve the stated purpose of separating the employee from the resident, less intrusive alternative measures such as changing living rooms with another care worker or adjusting the work schedule were available;
- Even assuming that some degree of work exclusion was necessary, the complete unpaid exclusion imposed a disadvantage in the employee’s livelihood more severe than a disciplinary suspension; and
- The employer failed to properly comply with the consultation procedures required when issuing such a personnel order.
In light of these circumstances, the Commission held that the employee still had a remedial interest in seeking cancellation of the personnel order imposing work exclusion.
Taking all of these factors into account, the Commission found that the dismissal measure in this case constituted a deviation or abuse of the employer’s managerial discretion and was therefore unfair.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Even if the work exclusion period has already ended, employees should note that a remedial interest in filing an application with the Labor Relations Commission may still be recognized where economic disadvantages such as unpaid wages for that period remain.
Furthermore, even where a measure is formally a personnel order—such as placing an employee on standby, relieving them of duties, or excluding them from work—if in substance it imposes an unpaid disadvantage equivalent to or more severe than suspension, it can be challenged in the same way as an unfair dismissal. Employees should therefore carefully check the underlying reasons, procedures, and whether wages were paid.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, even where there is a business necessity such as protecting residents or addressing safety concerns, extreme personnel measures such as complete unpaid exclusion from work should be used only as a last resort.
In assessing the legitimacy of a personnel order, the key factors are the balance between business necessity and the employee’s livelihood and economic disadvantage, and whether the employer has followed the procedures required under the principle of good faith, such as consultation and explanation.
Accordingly, employers should first consider less intrusive measures such as alternative assignments or adjustments to work schedules, and should document the relevant consultations and the process leading to the decision, as this is important for preventing disputes.
To reduce disputes of this type, it is advisable to consult in advance with experts who fully understand the legal principles governing personnel orders, collective redundancies, and unfair dismissal—such as Labor Law Firm Law&—and to design reasonable measures that do not exceed the bounds of managerial prerogative.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Existence of a remedial interest
The employer excluded the employee from care worker duties from 5 November 2025 to 30 November 2025 and did not pay base salary or other wages during that period. At the time the employee filed the application for remedy (28 November 2025), the work exclusion was still in effect, and even though the exclusion period had elapsed by the time of the decision hearing, the economic disadvantage of unpaid wages resulting from the work exclusion had not been remedied and continued. Therefore, the employee is recognized as having a remedial interest in seeking cancellation of the work exclusion (personnel order).
B. Legitimacy of the personnel order
In light of the fact that the purpose of separating the employee from the resident could have been achieved through measures such as changing living rooms with another care worker or revising the work schedule, it is difficult to find a strong necessity to completely exclude the employee from work. Even if some necessity for work exclusion is acknowledged, the unpaid nature of the measure imposed an economic disadvantage on the employee greater than that of a disciplinary suspension, so that the disadvantage to the employee’s livelihood was significantly greater than the business necessity. In addition, the employer did not properly comply with the consultation procedures required when issuing the personnel order. Accordingly, the personnel order constitutes a deviation or abuse of the managerial discretion granted to the employer and is unfair.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Existence of a remedial interest
The employer excluded the employee from care worker duties from 5 November 2025 to 30 November 2025 and did not pay base salary or other wages during that period. At the time the employee filed the application for remedy (28 November 2025), the work exclusion was still in effect, and even though the exclusion period had elapsed by the time of the decision hearing, the economic disadvantage of unpaid wages resulting from the work exclusion had not been remedied and continued. Therefore, the employee is recognized as having a remedial interest in seeking cancellation of the work exclusion (personnel order).
B. Legitimacy of the personnel order
In light of the fact that the purpose of separating the employee from the resident could have been achieved through measures such as changing living rooms with another care worker or revising the work schedule, it is difficult to find a strong necessity to completely exclude the employee from work. Even if some necessity for work exclusion is acknowledged, the unpaid nature of the measure imposed an economic disadvantage on the employee greater than that of a disciplinary suspension, so that the disadvantage to the employee’s livelihood was significantly greater than the business necessity. In addition, the employer did not properly comply with the consultation procedures required when issuing the personnel order. Accordingly, the personnel order constitutes a deviation or abuse of the managerial discretion granted to the employer and is unfair. /
[Further Related Decisions]
- “‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision”
- “‘Dismissal Rejected (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Date of decision: – Case number: Dismissal of application
- “‘No Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Date of decision: – Case number: Initial decision upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, abuse of managerial discretion (unpaid work exclusion of care worker), personnel order/transfer, unpaid wages, 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&.
※ You can view the previous article, “‘Disciplinary Severity (Information Leak by HR & General Affairs Team)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to abuse of managerial discretion (unpaid work exclusion of care worker) can be viewed together on the “Abuse of Managerial Discretion (Unpaid Work Exclusion of Care Worker) Related Decisions” page.
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the employee prevailed in full on the issue of “abuse of managerial discretion (unpaid work exclusion of care worker).”
Decision-making body: Jeju Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae233 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2025.12.30 · Case outcome: Employee’s claim fully upheld
Summary of key issues:
A. Existence of a remedial interest
The employer excluded the employee from care worker duties from 5 November 2025 to 30 November 2025 and did not pay base salary or any other wages during that period.
1. Legal Implications
In this unfair dismissal case, the Labor Relations Commission examined both the legitimacy of a personnel order imposing unpaid exclusion from work on a care worker and the existence of a remedial interest. Labor Law Firm Law& frequently receives consultations on similar types of cases.
The Commission focused on whether the measure was not a mere transfer or adjustment of work schedule, but in substance a personnel action causing an economic disadvantage even more severe than suspension from duty, and whether a remedial interest could still be recognized in respect of a work exclusion period that had already elapsed.
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employer completely excluded the employee, a care worker, from care work for approximately one month, from 5 November 2025 to 30 November 2025, and did not pay any base salary or other wages during that period.
While the work exclusion was still ongoing, on 28 November 2025 the employee filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission for a remedy for unfair dismissal (unfair personnel order). By the time of the Commission’s decision, the work exclusion period had already passed, and thus both the legitimacy of the personnel order and the existence of a remedial interest were in dispute.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issues in this case are:
“Whether, even after the work exclusion period has already elapsed, there still exists a remedial interest in seeking the cancellation of a personnel order imposing unpaid work exclusion, and whether a complete unpaid exclusion from work, justified on the ground of separating the employee from a resident, constitutes a legitimate exercise of the employer’s managerial prerogative.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case noted that:
- During the period of exclusion from work, the employer did not pay base salary or other wages, thereby clearly causing an economic disadvantage to the employee;
- At the time of the application for remedy, the work exclusion was still in progress, and even as of the time of the decision, the non-payment of wages resulting from the work exclusion had not been remedied;
- To achieve the stated purpose of separating the employee from the resident, less intrusive alternative measures such as changing living rooms with another care worker or adjusting the work schedule were available;
- Even assuming that some degree of work exclusion was necessary, the complete unpaid exclusion imposed a disadvantage in the employee’s livelihood more severe than a disciplinary suspension; and
- The employer failed to properly comply with the consultation procedures required when issuing such a personnel order.
In light of these circumstances, the Commission held that the employee still had a remedial interest in seeking cancellation of the personnel order imposing work exclusion.
Taking all of these factors into account, the Commission found that the dismissal measure in this case constituted a deviation or abuse of the employer’s managerial discretion and was therefore unfair.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Even if the work exclusion period has already ended, employees should note that a remedial interest in filing an application with the Labor Relations Commission may still be recognized where economic disadvantages such as unpaid wages for that period remain.
Furthermore, even where a measure is formally a personnel order—such as placing an employee on standby, relieving them of duties, or excluding them from work—if in substance it imposes an unpaid disadvantage equivalent to or more severe than suspension, it can be challenged in the same way as an unfair dismissal. Employees should therefore carefully check the underlying reasons, procedures, and whether wages were paid.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, even where there is a business necessity such as protecting residents or addressing safety concerns, extreme personnel measures such as complete unpaid exclusion from work should be used only as a last resort.
In assessing the legitimacy of a personnel order, the key factors are the balance between business necessity and the employee’s livelihood and economic disadvantage, and whether the employer has followed the procedures required under the principle of good faith, such as consultation and explanation.
Accordingly, employers should first consider less intrusive measures such as alternative assignments or adjustments to work schedules, and should document the relevant consultations and the process leading to the decision, as this is important for preventing disputes.
To reduce disputes of this type, it is advisable to consult in advance with experts who fully understand the legal principles governing personnel orders, collective redundancies, and unfair dismissal—such as Labor Law Firm Law&—and to design reasonable measures that do not exceed the bounds of managerial prerogative.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Existence of a remedial interest
The employer excluded the employee from care worker duties from 5 November 2025 to 30 November 2025 and did not pay base salary or other wages during that period. At the time the employee filed the application for remedy (28 November 2025), the work exclusion was still in effect, and even though the exclusion period had elapsed by the time of the decision hearing, the economic disadvantage of unpaid wages resulting from the work exclusion had not been remedied and continued. Therefore, the employee is recognized as having a remedial interest in seeking cancellation of the work exclusion (personnel order).
B. Legitimacy of the personnel order
In light of the fact that the purpose of separating the employee from the resident could have been achieved through measures such as changing living rooms with another care worker or revising the work schedule, it is difficult to find a strong necessity to completely exclude the employee from work. Even if some necessity for work exclusion is acknowledged, the unpaid nature of the measure imposed an economic disadvantage on the employee greater than that of a disciplinary suspension, so that the disadvantage to the employee’s livelihood was significantly greater than the business necessity. In addition, the employer did not properly comply with the consultation procedures required when issuing the personnel order. Accordingly, the personnel order constitutes a deviation or abuse of the managerial discretion granted to the employer and is unfair.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Existence of a remedial interest
The employer excluded the employee from care worker duties from 5 November 2025 to 30 November 2025 and did not pay base salary or other wages during that period. At the time the employee filed the application for remedy (28 November 2025), the work exclusion was still in effect, and even though the exclusion period had elapsed by the time of the decision hearing, the economic disadvantage of unpaid wages resulting from the work exclusion had not been remedied and continued. Therefore, the employee is recognized as having a remedial interest in seeking cancellation of the work exclusion (personnel order).
B. Legitimacy of the personnel order
In light of the fact that the purpose of separating the employee from the resident could have been achieved through measures such as changing living rooms with another care worker or revising the work schedule, it is difficult to find a strong necessity to completely exclude the employee from work. Even if some necessity for work exclusion is acknowledged, the unpaid nature of the measure imposed an economic disadvantage on the employee greater than that of a disciplinary suspension, so that the disadvantage to the employee’s livelihood was significantly greater than the business necessity. In addition, the employer did not properly comply with the consultation procedures required when issuing the personnel order. Accordingly, the personnel order constitutes a deviation or abuse of the managerial discretion granted to the employer and is unfair. /
[Further Related Decisions]
- “‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision”
- “‘Dismissal Rejected (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Date of decision: – Case number: Dismissal of application
- “‘No Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Date of decision: – Case number: Initial decision upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, abuse of managerial discretion (unpaid work exclusion of care worker), personnel order/transfer, unpaid wages, 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&.
※ You can view the previous article, “‘Disciplinary Severity (Information Leak by HR & General Affairs Team)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to abuse of managerial discretion (unpaid work exclusion of care worker) can be viewed together on the “Abuse of Managerial Discretion (Unpaid Work Exclusion of Care Worker) Related Decisions” page.
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
