Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Case on “Legitimacy of Suspension from Duty (Site Conflict Between Supervisor and Chief Supervisor)” (Unfair Dismissal 275)
- Date2026/03/11 04:04
- Read 234
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “legitimacy of suspension from duty (site conflict between supervisor and chief supervisor).”
Decision body: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae4176 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.01.13 · Case outcome: Dismissed
Summary of key issues:
A. Whether there was business necessity for the suspension from duty: there was ongoing conflict and discord between the employee and the chief supervisor, causing serious disruption to supervision work; by means of suspension from duty and personnel redeployment the employer was able to operate its workforce to normalize the site; to resolve the conflict and normalize supervision work, the employer placed both the employee and the chief supervisor on suspension from duty and then pursued redeployment to other sites; and due to site closures and other reasons there were temporarily no sites where supervision personnel could be assigned…
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This case concerns a situation where, due to ongoing conflict between an employee and a chief supervisor at a construction supervision site, serious disruption arose in the work. The company responded by placing both parties on suspension from duty and then pursuing personnel redeployment. The employee filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission, claiming that the suspension from duty in substance constituted an unfair dismissal. The Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission ruled in favor of the employer, making this a decision worth noting in the practice of Labor Law Firm Law&.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether a suspension from duty, imposed on the grounds of serious conflict at a supervision site and a shortage of available sites, constitutes a legitimate exercise of managerial prerogative in terms of (i) business necessity, (ii) the balancing of such necessity against the employee’s disadvantage in daily life, and (iii) the consultation procedure.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case found that: the conflict between the employee and the chief supervisor had caused serious disruption to supervision work; the company, in order to resolve the conflict and normalize operations at the site, had placed both parties on suspension from duty and was pursuing their redeployment; and, due to the downturn in the construction market, many top-grade supervisors were already on standby and there were employees who had been on suspension longer than the employee.
In light of these circumstances, the Commission held that the suspension from duty was supported by business necessity.
In addition, although the company’s payment of a suspension allowance equivalent to 70% of the average wage did entail economic disadvantage for the employee, the Commission considered that the employer’s managerial needs, arising from the domestic construction downturn and shortage of sites, were greater. It also took into account that, as a matter of industry practice in the supervision sector, when there is no available site, supervisors are generally placed on suspension from duty and paid 70% of their wages.
On the premise that this measure did not constitute a dismissal, the Commission held that the suspension from duty could not readily be regarded as unfair.
The Commission further found that, as the company had attempted to resolve the conflict through interviews and similar efforts, the consultation procedure with the employee met at least the minimum level required under the principle of good faith.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, it should be borne in mind that a suspension from duty is not immediately recognized as an unfair dismissal. Rather, the determination is made comprehensively, taking into account business necessity, the disadvantage to the employee’s livelihood, and procedural fairness. In particular, where managerial reasons such as site closure or shortage of sites are clear, and a suspension allowance (70% or more of the average wage) is paid in line with industry practice, there are limits to arguing that the measure is unfair.
However, if the suspension period becomes excessively prolonged, or if a particular employee is selectively excluded in a discriminatory manner, there is room for the suspension from duty to be assessed as an abuse of managerial prerogative or as a de facto dismissal. In such cases, it is important to keep detailed records of the relevant materials and circumstances.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, even though suspension from duty is a type of personnel order for which discretion is recognized, it is important—consistent with Supreme Court precedent—to document: (i) business necessity, (ii) the balancing of such necessity against the disadvantage to the employee’s livelihood, and (iii) the consultation process with the employee. Especially in cases like this one, where conflict and discord cause serious disruption to site operations, objective materials should be secured regarding the course of the conflict, the extent of work disruption, and whether alternative personnel measures were considered.
Given the nature of the construction and supervision industries, suspensions from duty due to site closures or shortages of sites may recur. Therefore, it is advisable to specify in the rules of employment and personnel regulations the grounds for suspension from duty, its duration, and wage payment standards (e.g., 70% of the average wage), and, in actual operation, to maintain consistent standards so that the measure is not applied disadvantageously to specific individuals only.
2. Matters Determined
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Whether there was business necessity for the suspension from duty
In view of the following: there was ongoing conflict and discord between the employee and the chief supervisor, causing serious disruption to supervision work; by means of suspension from duty and personnel redeployment the employer was able to operate its workforce to normalize the site; to resolve the conflict and normalize supervision work, the employer placed both the employee and the chief supervisor on suspension from duty and then pursued their redeployment to other sites; when, due to site closure and similar reasons, there was temporarily no site to which supervision personnel could be assigned, there appears to have been a general practice of placing supervisors on suspension from duty and paying 70% of their wages as suspension allowance; the employer had supervision personnel of top, high, intermediate, and junior grades, and, due to the absence of sites, seven top-grade supervisors were on standby, and there was an employee who had been on suspension from duty for two months longer than the employee in this case. Considering all of these factors together, business necessity for the suspension from duty is recognized.
B. Whether the suspension from duty caused disadvantage to the employee’s livelihood
The employer continued to pay the employee wages equivalent to 70% of normal wages as a suspension allowance, so there was economic disadvantage. However, because the employer’s managerial necessity, arising from the domestic construction downturn and shortage of sites, was greater, the business necessity of the suspension from duty clearly outweighed the disadvantage to the employee’s livelihood.
C. Whether sincere consultation and other procedures were followed
The employer made efforts to conduct interviews in order to resolve the conflict between the employee and the chief supervisor and normalize the site. On this basis alone, it can be regarded that consultation with the employee took place.
3. Summary of Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Whether there was business necessity for the suspension from duty
In view of the following: there was ongoing conflict and discord between the employee and the chief supervisor, causing serious disruption to supervision work; by means of suspension from duty and personnel redeployment the employer was able to operate its workforce to normalize the site; to resolve the conflict and normalize supervision work, the employer placed both the employee and the chief supervisor on suspension from duty and then pursued their redeployment to other sites; when, due to site closure and similar reasons, there was temporarily no site to which supervision personnel could be assigned, there appears to have been a general practice of placing supervisors on suspension from duty and paying 70% of their wages as suspension allowance; the employer had supervision personnel of top, high, intermediate, and junior grades, and, due to the absence of sites, seven top-grade supervisors were on standby, and there was an employee who had been on suspension from duty for two months longer than the employee in this case. Considering all of these factors together, business necessity for the suspension from duty is recognized.
B. Whether the suspension from duty caused disadvantage to the employee’s livelihood
The employer continued to pay the employee wages equivalent to 70% of normal wages as a suspension allowance, so there was economic disadvantage. However, because the employer’s managerial necessity, arising from the domestic construction downturn and shortage of sites, was greater, the business necessity of the suspension from duty clearly outweighed the disadvantage to the employee’s livelihood.
C. Whether sincere consultation and other procedures were followed
The employer made efforts to conduct interviews in order to resolve the conflict between the employee and the chief supervisor and normalize the site. On this basis alone, it can be regarded that consultation with the employee took place. /
[Further Related Decisions]
- “‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
- “‘No Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Date of decision: – Case number: Initial decision upheld
- “‘Expression of Intention to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, legitimacy of suspension from duty (site conflict between supervisor and chief supervisor), performance evaluation · poor performance, violation of company policy · non-compliance with work instructions, 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 Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ You can view the previous article, “‘Right to Terminate Probation (Casino Table Game Probationary Employee)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to legitimacy of suspension from duty (site conflict between supervisor and chief supervisor) can be viewed together on the “List of Decisions on Legitimacy of Suspension from Duty (Site Conflict Between Supervisor and Chief Supervisor)” page.
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “legitimacy of suspension from duty (site conflict between supervisor and chief supervisor).”
Decision body: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae4176 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.01.13 · Case outcome: Dismissed
Summary of key issues:
A. Whether there was business necessity for the suspension from duty: there was ongoing conflict and discord between the employee and the chief supervisor, causing serious disruption to supervision work; by means of suspension from duty and personnel redeployment the employer was able to operate its workforce to normalize the site; to resolve the conflict and normalize supervision work, the employer placed both the employee and the chief supervisor on suspension from duty and then pursued redeployment to other sites; and due to site closures and other reasons there were temporarily no sites where supervision personnel could be assigned…
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This case concerns a situation where, due to ongoing conflict between an employee and a chief supervisor at a construction supervision site, serious disruption arose in the work. The company responded by placing both parties on suspension from duty and then pursuing personnel redeployment. The employee filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission, claiming that the suspension from duty in substance constituted an unfair dismissal. The Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission ruled in favor of the employer, making this a decision worth noting in the practice of Labor Law Firm Law&.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether a suspension from duty, imposed on the grounds of serious conflict at a supervision site and a shortage of available sites, constitutes a legitimate exercise of managerial prerogative in terms of (i) business necessity, (ii) the balancing of such necessity against the employee’s disadvantage in daily life, and (iii) the consultation procedure.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case found that: the conflict between the employee and the chief supervisor had caused serious disruption to supervision work; the company, in order to resolve the conflict and normalize operations at the site, had placed both parties on suspension from duty and was pursuing their redeployment; and, due to the downturn in the construction market, many top-grade supervisors were already on standby and there were employees who had been on suspension longer than the employee.
In light of these circumstances, the Commission held that the suspension from duty was supported by business necessity.
In addition, although the company’s payment of a suspension allowance equivalent to 70% of the average wage did entail economic disadvantage for the employee, the Commission considered that the employer’s managerial needs, arising from the domestic construction downturn and shortage of sites, were greater. It also took into account that, as a matter of industry practice in the supervision sector, when there is no available site, supervisors are generally placed on suspension from duty and paid 70% of their wages.
On the premise that this measure did not constitute a dismissal, the Commission held that the suspension from duty could not readily be regarded as unfair.
The Commission further found that, as the company had attempted to resolve the conflict through interviews and similar efforts, the consultation procedure with the employee met at least the minimum level required under the principle of good faith.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, it should be borne in mind that a suspension from duty is not immediately recognized as an unfair dismissal. Rather, the determination is made comprehensively, taking into account business necessity, the disadvantage to the employee’s livelihood, and procedural fairness. In particular, where managerial reasons such as site closure or shortage of sites are clear, and a suspension allowance (70% or more of the average wage) is paid in line with industry practice, there are limits to arguing that the measure is unfair.
However, if the suspension period becomes excessively prolonged, or if a particular employee is selectively excluded in a discriminatory manner, there is room for the suspension from duty to be assessed as an abuse of managerial prerogative or as a de facto dismissal. In such cases, it is important to keep detailed records of the relevant materials and circumstances.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, even though suspension from duty is a type of personnel order for which discretion is recognized, it is important—consistent with Supreme Court precedent—to document: (i) business necessity, (ii) the balancing of such necessity against the disadvantage to the employee’s livelihood, and (iii) the consultation process with the employee. Especially in cases like this one, where conflict and discord cause serious disruption to site operations, objective materials should be secured regarding the course of the conflict, the extent of work disruption, and whether alternative personnel measures were considered.
Given the nature of the construction and supervision industries, suspensions from duty due to site closures or shortages of sites may recur. Therefore, it is advisable to specify in the rules of employment and personnel regulations the grounds for suspension from duty, its duration, and wage payment standards (e.g., 70% of the average wage), and, in actual operation, to maintain consistent standards so that the measure is not applied disadvantageously to specific individuals only.
2. Matters Determined
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Whether there was business necessity for the suspension from duty
In view of the following: there was ongoing conflict and discord between the employee and the chief supervisor, causing serious disruption to supervision work; by means of suspension from duty and personnel redeployment the employer was able to operate its workforce to normalize the site; to resolve the conflict and normalize supervision work, the employer placed both the employee and the chief supervisor on suspension from duty and then pursued their redeployment to other sites; when, due to site closure and similar reasons, there was temporarily no site to which supervision personnel could be assigned, there appears to have been a general practice of placing supervisors on suspension from duty and paying 70% of their wages as suspension allowance; the employer had supervision personnel of top, high, intermediate, and junior grades, and, due to the absence of sites, seven top-grade supervisors were on standby, and there was an employee who had been on suspension from duty for two months longer than the employee in this case. Considering all of these factors together, business necessity for the suspension from duty is recognized.
B. Whether the suspension from duty caused disadvantage to the employee’s livelihood
The employer continued to pay the employee wages equivalent to 70% of normal wages as a suspension allowance, so there was economic disadvantage. However, because the employer’s managerial necessity, arising from the domestic construction downturn and shortage of sites, was greater, the business necessity of the suspension from duty clearly outweighed the disadvantage to the employee’s livelihood.
C. Whether sincere consultation and other procedures were followed
The employer made efforts to conduct interviews in order to resolve the conflict between the employee and the chief supervisor and normalize the site. On this basis alone, it can be regarded that consultation with the employee took place.
3. Summary of Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Whether there was business necessity for the suspension from duty
In view of the following: there was ongoing conflict and discord between the employee and the chief supervisor, causing serious disruption to supervision work; by means of suspension from duty and personnel redeployment the employer was able to operate its workforce to normalize the site; to resolve the conflict and normalize supervision work, the employer placed both the employee and the chief supervisor on suspension from duty and then pursued their redeployment to other sites; when, due to site closure and similar reasons, there was temporarily no site to which supervision personnel could be assigned, there appears to have been a general practice of placing supervisors on suspension from duty and paying 70% of their wages as suspension allowance; the employer had supervision personnel of top, high, intermediate, and junior grades, and, due to the absence of sites, seven top-grade supervisors were on standby, and there was an employee who had been on suspension from duty for two months longer than the employee in this case. Considering all of these factors together, business necessity for the suspension from duty is recognized.
B. Whether the suspension from duty caused disadvantage to the employee’s livelihood
The employer continued to pay the employee wages equivalent to 70% of normal wages as a suspension allowance, so there was economic disadvantage. However, because the employer’s managerial necessity, arising from the domestic construction downturn and shortage of sites, was greater, the business necessity of the suspension from duty clearly outweighed the disadvantage to the employee’s livelihood.
C. Whether sincere consultation and other procedures were followed
The employer made efforts to conduct interviews in order to resolve the conflict between the employee and the chief supervisor and normalize the site. On this basis alone, it can be regarded that consultation with the employee took place. /
[Further Related Decisions]
- “‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
- “‘No Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Date of decision: – Case number: Initial decision upheld
- “‘Expression of Intention to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, legitimacy of suspension from duty (site conflict between supervisor and chief supervisor), performance evaluation · poor performance, violation of company policy · non-compliance with work instructions, 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 Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ You can view the previous article, “‘Right to Terminate Probation (Casino Table Game Probationary Employee)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to legitimacy of suspension from duty (site conflict between supervisor and chief supervisor) can be viewed together on the “List of Decisions on Legitimacy of Suspension from Duty (Site Conflict Between Supervisor and Chief Supervisor)” page.
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
