Corporate trends / Performance record
Invalid Standby Order (For Workplace Harassment Investigation Only) – Unfair Dismissal Decision (Unfair Dismissal 201)
- Date2026/02/14 04:09
- Read 248
This case concerns a decision in which the employee partially prevailed on the issue of “invalid standby order (for workplace harassment investigation only).”
Decision body: Busan Regional Labor Relations Commission
Case: 2025Buhae9013 ○○○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
Date: 2025.12.12 · Result: Partially upheld
Summary of key issues:
A. Legitimacy of the standby order
In the disciplinary proceedings that took place after the standby order, the investigation appears to have focused on workplace harassment (Article 10(9) of the Rules on Rewards and Punishments) unrelated to the grounds initially cited for the standby order. Accordingly, the Commission found that the standby order in this case lacked business necessity.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employee applied to the Labor Relations Commission for relief, claiming that the company’s standby order and subsequent suspension from duty (disciplinary suspension) constituted unfair dismissal. The Busan Regional Labor Relations Commission reviewed the standby order and the suspension separately and decided that the standby order was unjustified for lack of business necessity, whereas the suspension itself was within the employer’s disciplinary discretion and therefore legitimate. The application was thus only partially upheld.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issues in this case are:
“(i) Whether a measure that effectively placed the employee on ‘standby’ solely for the purpose of investigating workplace harassment, irrespective of the reasons stated at the time of the standby order, constitutes a legitimate exercise of managerial authority; and (ii) whether the subsequent disciplinary suspension based on workplace harassment was justified in terms of grounds for discipline, proportionality of the sanction, and procedural propriety.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
The decision panel found that, in the disciplinary proceedings conducted after the standby order, the actual subject of investigation and determination was workplace harassment, which was separate from the grounds initially cited for the standby order; that the employer failed to objectively substantiate the business necessity and grounds required to justify the standby order itself; and that, as a personnel measure, a standby order requires a balancing between business necessity and the employee’s disadvantage in terms of livelihood.
On this basis, the Commission held that the standby order in this case lacked business necessity and constituted an unjust personnel measure.
By contrast, with respect to the disciplinary suspension, the Commission found that: considering the course of the prior reprimand case and the results of the workplace harassment investigation, the fact of the employee’s workplace harassment was established; the level of discipline could not be regarded as so grossly disproportionate as to be socially unacceptable; and the company had convened a Rewards and Punishments Committee and afforded the employee an opportunity to explain, such that there were no procedural defects. Accordingly, the Commission held that the disciplinary suspension was a legitimate exercise of the employer’s discretion and rejected the claim of unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s standpoint, it should be noted that if a standby order is used for a purpose different from the actual grounds, or is maintained for an extended period without clear business necessity, it may be challenged as an unjust standby order. However, if, following a separate investigation and due process, grounds for discipline such as workplace harassment are established, the level of discipline is not excessive by social standards, and the disciplinary procedures are lawfully conducted, then disciplinary measures such as suspension or wage reduction may still be found to be justified.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, when exercising the authority to issue a standby order, it is essential to clearly establish the “grounds for the standby order at the time” and the corresponding business necessity, as the legitimacy of the measure will be assessed based on those grounds. Where there is a need to investigate a workplace harassment case, even if a standby order is used as a pre‑disciplinary investigative measure, the employer should clearly set out the basis in the rules of employment or personnel regulations, the duration, and the degree of disadvantage to the employee’s livelihood, and, upon completion of the investigation, promptly take appropriate disciplinary or reinstatement measures.
This decision underscores, in disputes over unfair dismissal and redundancy dismissals, that standby orders and removal from position on the one hand, and disciplinary measures on the other, must be distinguished, and that the legitimacy of each (in terms of grounds, procedure, and proportionality) must be established separately. At the Labor Relations Commission stage, it is crucial to accurately define the legal nature and grounds of the initial personnel measures in consultation with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Legitimacy of the Standby Order
In the disciplinary proceedings that took place after the standby order, the investigation appears to have focused on workplace harassment (Article 10(9) of the Rules on Rewards and Punishments) unrelated to the grounds initially cited for the standby order. Accordingly, the Commission found that the standby order in this case lacked business necessity.
B. Legitimacy of the Disciplinary Suspension
1) Existence of Grounds for Discipline
In light of the course of the case related to the reprimand imposed prior to the disciplinary suspension in this case, and the results of the workplace harassment investigation, the employee’s workplace harassment is deemed to be established, and thus grounds for discipline exist.
2) Appropriateness of the Level of Discipline
There is no basis to find that the disciplinary measure was so grossly unreasonable by social standards as to constitute an abuse of discretion. Accordingly, the disciplinary suspension imposed on the employee is deemed to have been appropriately determined within the scope of the employer’s discretion.
3) Legality of Disciplinary Procedures
The employer convened a Rewards and Punishments Committee in accordance with company regulations and afforded the employee an opportunity to explain, and no other procedural defects can be found.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
A. Legitimacy of the Standby Order
In the disciplinary proceedings that took place after the standby order, the investigation appears to have focused on workplace harassment (Article 10(9) of the Rules on Rewards and Punishments) unrelated to the grounds initially cited for the standby order. Accordingly, the Commission found that the standby order in this case lacked business necessity.
B. Legitimacy of the Disciplinary Suspension
1) Existence of Grounds for Discipline
In light of the course of the case related to the reprimand imposed prior to the disciplinary suspension in this case, and the results of the workplace harassment investigation, the employee’s workplace harassment is deemed to be established, and thus grounds for discipline exist.
2) Appropriateness of the Level of Discipline
There is no basis to find that the disciplinary measure was so grossly unreasonable by social standards as to constitute an abuse of discretion. Accordingly, the disciplinary suspension imposed on the employee is deemed to have been appropriately determined within the scope of the employer’s discretion.
3) Legality of Disciplinary Procedures
The employer convened a Rewards and Punishments Committee in accordance with company regulations and afforded the employee an opportunity to explain, and no other procedural defects can be found. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark During Telephone Call)” – Unfair Dismissal Decision
- “Expression of Intent to Resign (Traffic Accident Interview)” – Unfair Dismissal Decision
- “Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)” – Unfair Dismissal Decision
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, invalid standby order (for workplace harassment investigation only), workplace harassment, disciplinary dismissal, 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, “Expression of Intent to Resign (Traffic Accident Interview) – Unfair Dismissal Decision,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to invalid standby orders (for workplace harassment investigation only) can be viewed in the “Invalid Standby Order (For Workplace Harassment Investigation Only) – Related Decisions” section.
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
Decision body: Busan Regional Labor Relations Commission
Case: 2025Buhae9013 ○○○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
Date: 2025.12.12 · Result: Partially upheld
Summary of key issues:
A. Legitimacy of the standby order
In the disciplinary proceedings that took place after the standby order, the investigation appears to have focused on workplace harassment (Article 10(9) of the Rules on Rewards and Punishments) unrelated to the grounds initially cited for the standby order. Accordingly, the Commission found that the standby order in this case lacked business necessity.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employee applied to the Labor Relations Commission for relief, claiming that the company’s standby order and subsequent suspension from duty (disciplinary suspension) constituted unfair dismissal. The Busan Regional Labor Relations Commission reviewed the standby order and the suspension separately and decided that the standby order was unjustified for lack of business necessity, whereas the suspension itself was within the employer’s disciplinary discretion and therefore legitimate. The application was thus only partially upheld.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issues in this case are:
“(i) Whether a measure that effectively placed the employee on ‘standby’ solely for the purpose of investigating workplace harassment, irrespective of the reasons stated at the time of the standby order, constitutes a legitimate exercise of managerial authority; and (ii) whether the subsequent disciplinary suspension based on workplace harassment was justified in terms of grounds for discipline, proportionality of the sanction, and procedural propriety.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
The decision panel found that, in the disciplinary proceedings conducted after the standby order, the actual subject of investigation and determination was workplace harassment, which was separate from the grounds initially cited for the standby order; that the employer failed to objectively substantiate the business necessity and grounds required to justify the standby order itself; and that, as a personnel measure, a standby order requires a balancing between business necessity and the employee’s disadvantage in terms of livelihood.
On this basis, the Commission held that the standby order in this case lacked business necessity and constituted an unjust personnel measure.
By contrast, with respect to the disciplinary suspension, the Commission found that: considering the course of the prior reprimand case and the results of the workplace harassment investigation, the fact of the employee’s workplace harassment was established; the level of discipline could not be regarded as so grossly disproportionate as to be socially unacceptable; and the company had convened a Rewards and Punishments Committee and afforded the employee an opportunity to explain, such that there were no procedural defects. Accordingly, the Commission held that the disciplinary suspension was a legitimate exercise of the employer’s discretion and rejected the claim of unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s standpoint, it should be noted that if a standby order is used for a purpose different from the actual grounds, or is maintained for an extended period without clear business necessity, it may be challenged as an unjust standby order. However, if, following a separate investigation and due process, grounds for discipline such as workplace harassment are established, the level of discipline is not excessive by social standards, and the disciplinary procedures are lawfully conducted, then disciplinary measures such as suspension or wage reduction may still be found to be justified.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, when exercising the authority to issue a standby order, it is essential to clearly establish the “grounds for the standby order at the time” and the corresponding business necessity, as the legitimacy of the measure will be assessed based on those grounds. Where there is a need to investigate a workplace harassment case, even if a standby order is used as a pre‑disciplinary investigative measure, the employer should clearly set out the basis in the rules of employment or personnel regulations, the duration, and the degree of disadvantage to the employee’s livelihood, and, upon completion of the investigation, promptly take appropriate disciplinary or reinstatement measures.
This decision underscores, in disputes over unfair dismissal and redundancy dismissals, that standby orders and removal from position on the one hand, and disciplinary measures on the other, must be distinguished, and that the legitimacy of each (in terms of grounds, procedure, and proportionality) must be established separately. At the Labor Relations Commission stage, it is crucial to accurately define the legal nature and grounds of the initial personnel measures in consultation with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Legitimacy of the Standby Order
In the disciplinary proceedings that took place after the standby order, the investigation appears to have focused on workplace harassment (Article 10(9) of the Rules on Rewards and Punishments) unrelated to the grounds initially cited for the standby order. Accordingly, the Commission found that the standby order in this case lacked business necessity.
B. Legitimacy of the Disciplinary Suspension
1) Existence of Grounds for Discipline
In light of the course of the case related to the reprimand imposed prior to the disciplinary suspension in this case, and the results of the workplace harassment investigation, the employee’s workplace harassment is deemed to be established, and thus grounds for discipline exist.
2) Appropriateness of the Level of Discipline
There is no basis to find that the disciplinary measure was so grossly unreasonable by social standards as to constitute an abuse of discretion. Accordingly, the disciplinary suspension imposed on the employee is deemed to have been appropriately determined within the scope of the employer’s discretion.
3) Legality of Disciplinary Procedures
The employer convened a Rewards and Punishments Committee in accordance with company regulations and afforded the employee an opportunity to explain, and no other procedural defects can be found.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
A. Legitimacy of the Standby Order
In the disciplinary proceedings that took place after the standby order, the investigation appears to have focused on workplace harassment (Article 10(9) of the Rules on Rewards and Punishments) unrelated to the grounds initially cited for the standby order. Accordingly, the Commission found that the standby order in this case lacked business necessity.
B. Legitimacy of the Disciplinary Suspension
1) Existence of Grounds for Discipline
In light of the course of the case related to the reprimand imposed prior to the disciplinary suspension in this case, and the results of the workplace harassment investigation, the employee’s workplace harassment is deemed to be established, and thus grounds for discipline exist.
2) Appropriateness of the Level of Discipline
There is no basis to find that the disciplinary measure was so grossly unreasonable by social standards as to constitute an abuse of discretion. Accordingly, the disciplinary suspension imposed on the employee is deemed to have been appropriately determined within the scope of the employer’s discretion.
3) Legality of Disciplinary Procedures
The employer convened a Rewards and Punishments Committee in accordance with company regulations and afforded the employee an opportunity to explain, and no other procedural defects can be found. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark During Telephone Call)” – Unfair Dismissal Decision
- “Expression of Intent to Resign (Traffic Accident Interview)” – Unfair Dismissal Decision
- “Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)” – Unfair Dismissal Decision
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, invalid standby order (for workplace harassment investigation only), workplace harassment, disciplinary dismissal, 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, “Expression of Intent to Resign (Traffic Accident Interview) – Unfair Dismissal Decision,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to invalid standby orders (for workplace harassment investigation only) can be viewed in the “Invalid Standby Order (For Workplace Harassment Investigation Only) – Related Decisions” section.
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
