Corporate trends / Performance record
“Remedial Interest in Position Suspension (Misconduct Reported in the Media)” – Unfair Dismissal Decision (Unfair Dismissal 280)
- Date2026/03/13 04:13
- Read 250
[Case Information]
This case is a decision that concluded with the first-instance ruling being upheld, focusing on the issue of “remedial interest in position suspension (misconduct reported in the media).”
Decision Body: Central Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae1475 ○ ○ ○ Application for Re‑examination of Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.01.13 · Case Result: First‑Instance Decision Upheld
Summary of Key Issues:
A. Whether there is remedial interest in relation to the position suspension
The employer resolved to impose disciplinary dismissal and removal from office (“dismissal and removal”) on the same grounds as those for the position suspension. However, because there were legal disadvantages during the suspension period—such as ineligibility for promotion, restrictions on salary step advancement, and pro‑rata calculation of performance bonuses—the Commission held that the employees had a legitimate interest in seeking a declaration that the position suspension was null and void.
1. Legal Implications
In this unfair dismissal case, the core issues before the Labor Relations Commission were the relationship between the position suspension and the subsequent dismissal/removal, and whether there was remedial interest in challenging the position suspension itself. These issues are closely related to similar disputes handled by Labor Law Firm Law&.
In particular, the case addressed whether a position suspension imposed in a situation where the employees’ misconduct had been reported in the media, thereby damaging the employer’s reputation and prestige, constituted a legitimate exercise of managerial authority. It also illustrates how the legal principles governing position suspension as a “temporary personnel measure,” distinct from redundancy dismissal, are applied in practice.
Ⅰ. Case Overview
The employer imposed position suspensions on certain employees after their misconduct—such as misuse of sick leave and improper use of “work cooperation” arrangements—was reported in the media, causing public controversy and seriously damaging the employer’s reputation and prestige.
Subsequently, on the same grounds of misconduct, the employer resolved to impose severe disciplinary measures in the form of dismissal and removal from office. The employees filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission for re‑examination, claiming that both the position suspension and the dismissal constituted unfair dismissal.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issues in this case were:
“(i) Whether remedial interest in challenging the position suspension still exists where dismissal and removal from office have been resolved on the same grounds after the suspension; and (ii) whether a position suspension based on misconduct that caused public controversy through media reports is justified as a discretionary exercise of the employer’s managerial authority.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case held that, even though the employer had resolved to impose dismissal and removal from office on the same grounds as those for the position suspension, the employees still had remedial interest in seeking a declaration that the position suspension was null and void.
The panel relied on the following points: during the suspension period, there were legally prescribed disadvantages in terms of personnel and remuneration, such as ineligibility for promotion, restrictions on salary step advancement, and pro‑rata calculation of performance bonuses; unlike disciplinary measures, position suspension is a temporary personnel measure that maintains the employment status of the employee while excluding them from their duties; and even if the effect of the position suspension is subsequently extinguished by the imposition of disciplinary measures after the suspension, the disadvantages suffered during the suspension period do not retroactively disappear.
The panel further noted that the employees’ misconduct had become publicly known through media reports, damaging the employer’s reputation and prestige; that it was difficult to regard such adverse social evaluation as having been immediately restored by the time of the position suspension; that allowing the employees involved in the misconduct to continue performing their duties would likely have a negative impact on the employer’s external credibility and social evaluation; that position suspension was also necessary to reduce any work disruption that might arise in the event of future dismissal or suspension from duty, given that severe disciplinary measures were anticipated; and that the requirements and procedures for position suspension had been complied with in accordance with the applicable rules.
On this basis, while leaving aside the lawfulness of the dismissal itself as a separate matter, the panel held that the position suspension in this case was a legitimate measure within the scope of the employer’s discretionary managerial authority.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, it should be noted that even if disciplinary measures such as dismissal or removal from office are imposed after a position suspension, remedial interest in challenging the position suspension as an unfair personnel measure may still be recognized where there are specific disadvantages during the suspension period, such as restrictions on promotion and salary step advancement or reductions in performance bonuses.
However, where a position suspension is imposed as a “temporary and preventive measure” in a situation where the company’s external credibility has been seriously damaged—such as by public controversy, media reports, or criminal indictment—the legitimacy of the measure may be broadly recognized, depending on the necessity of the measure and compliance with procedural requirements.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, even when using position suspension as a temporary personnel measure rather than as a disciplinary sanction, it is important to clearly stipulate in the personnel regulations or rules of employment the grounds and procedures for position suspension, as well as its effects on promotion, salary step advancement, performance bonuses, and related matters.
In particular, where there has been serious damage to external trust due to public controversy, damage to reputation and prestige, or similar circumstances arising from media reports, employers should keep thorough records and evidence to objectively substantiate: the business necessity of the position suspension; its connection to the misconduct; and the need to prevent future work disruption in anticipation of possible disciplinary measures.
2. Matters Determined
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Whether there is remedial interest in relation to the position suspension
The employer resolved to impose disciplinary “dismissal and removal from office” on the same grounds as those for the position suspension. However, because there were legal disadvantages during the suspension period—such as ineligibility for promotion, restrictions on salary step advancement, and pro‑rata calculation of performance bonuses—the employees had an interest in seeking a declaration that the position suspension was null and void.
B. Whether the position suspension was justified
The employees’ misconduct (misuse of sick leave and improper use of “work cooperation” arrangements) was reported in the media, causing public controversy and damaging the employer’s reputation and prestige, and it is difficult to regard such adverse effects as having been immediately resolved by the time of the position suspension.
In these circumstances, allowing the employees involved in the misconduct to continue performing their duties would negatively affect the employer’s external credibility and social evaluation. It cannot be categorically concluded that excluding the employees from their duties was an inappropriate response to the negative evaluation of the employer’s damaged prestige and work credibility. Accordingly, the position suspension is deemed to fall within the scope of the employer’s discretionary managerial authority.
Moreover, as severe disciplinary measures were anticipated against the employees in this case, work disruption was also expected in the event that the employees would later be dismissed or suspended from duty. The necessity of the position suspension is therefore recognized from this perspective as well. Since the requirements and procedures for the position suspension were complied with, the measure is justified.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Whether there is remedial interest in relation to the position suspension
The employer resolved to impose disciplinary “dismissal and removal from office” on the same grounds as those for the position suspension. However, because there were legal disadvantages during the suspension period—such as ineligibility for promotion, restrictions on salary step advancement, and pro‑rata calculation of performance bonuses—the employees had an interest in seeking a declaration that the position suspension was null and void.
B. Whether the position suspension was justified
The employees’ misconduct (misuse of sick leave and improper use of “work cooperation” arrangements) was reported in the media, causing public controversy and damaging the employer’s reputation and prestige, and it is difficult to regard such adverse effects as having been immediately resolved by the time of the position suspension.
In these circumstances, allowing the employees involved in the misconduct to continue performing their duties would negatively affect the employer’s external credibility and social evaluation. It cannot be categorically concluded that excluding the employees from their duties was an inappropriate response to the negative evaluation of the employer’s damaged prestige and work credibility. Accordingly, the position suspension is deemed to fall within the scope of the employer’s discretionary managerial authority.
Moreover, as severe disciplinary measures were anticipated against the employees in this case, work disruption was also expected in the event that the employees would later be dismissed or suspended from duty. The necessity of the position suspension is therefore recognized from this perspective as well. Since the requirements and procedures for the position suspension were complied with, the measure is justified. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Justifiability of Reassignment (Outsourcing of Design Work)” – Unfair Dismissal Decision
- “Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)” – Unfair Dismissal Decision
- “Denial of Employee Status (Non‑Full‑Time, Commission Linked to Sales)” – Unfair Dismissal Decision
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, remedial interest in position suspension (misconduct reported in the media), disciplinary dismissal, violation of company policy · non‑compliance with work instructions, 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, “Justifiability of Reassignment (Outsourcing of Design Work) – Unfair Dismissal Decision,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to remedial interest in position suspension (misconduct reported in the media) can be viewed under “List of Decisions on Remedial Interest in Position Suspension (Misconduct Reported in the Media).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision that concluded with the first-instance ruling being upheld, focusing on the issue of “remedial interest in position suspension (misconduct reported in the media).”
Decision Body: Central Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae1475 ○ ○ ○ Application for Re‑examination of Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.01.13 · Case Result: First‑Instance Decision Upheld
Summary of Key Issues:
A. Whether there is remedial interest in relation to the position suspension
The employer resolved to impose disciplinary dismissal and removal from office (“dismissal and removal”) on the same grounds as those for the position suspension. However, because there were legal disadvantages during the suspension period—such as ineligibility for promotion, restrictions on salary step advancement, and pro‑rata calculation of performance bonuses—the Commission held that the employees had a legitimate interest in seeking a declaration that the position suspension was null and void.
1. Legal Implications
In this unfair dismissal case, the core issues before the Labor Relations Commission were the relationship between the position suspension and the subsequent dismissal/removal, and whether there was remedial interest in challenging the position suspension itself. These issues are closely related to similar disputes handled by Labor Law Firm Law&.
In particular, the case addressed whether a position suspension imposed in a situation where the employees’ misconduct had been reported in the media, thereby damaging the employer’s reputation and prestige, constituted a legitimate exercise of managerial authority. It also illustrates how the legal principles governing position suspension as a “temporary personnel measure,” distinct from redundancy dismissal, are applied in practice.
Ⅰ. Case Overview
The employer imposed position suspensions on certain employees after their misconduct—such as misuse of sick leave and improper use of “work cooperation” arrangements—was reported in the media, causing public controversy and seriously damaging the employer’s reputation and prestige.
Subsequently, on the same grounds of misconduct, the employer resolved to impose severe disciplinary measures in the form of dismissal and removal from office. The employees filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission for re‑examination, claiming that both the position suspension and the dismissal constituted unfair dismissal.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issues in this case were:
“(i) Whether remedial interest in challenging the position suspension still exists where dismissal and removal from office have been resolved on the same grounds after the suspension; and (ii) whether a position suspension based on misconduct that caused public controversy through media reports is justified as a discretionary exercise of the employer’s managerial authority.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case held that, even though the employer had resolved to impose dismissal and removal from office on the same grounds as those for the position suspension, the employees still had remedial interest in seeking a declaration that the position suspension was null and void.
The panel relied on the following points: during the suspension period, there were legally prescribed disadvantages in terms of personnel and remuneration, such as ineligibility for promotion, restrictions on salary step advancement, and pro‑rata calculation of performance bonuses; unlike disciplinary measures, position suspension is a temporary personnel measure that maintains the employment status of the employee while excluding them from their duties; and even if the effect of the position suspension is subsequently extinguished by the imposition of disciplinary measures after the suspension, the disadvantages suffered during the suspension period do not retroactively disappear.
The panel further noted that the employees’ misconduct had become publicly known through media reports, damaging the employer’s reputation and prestige; that it was difficult to regard such adverse social evaluation as having been immediately restored by the time of the position suspension; that allowing the employees involved in the misconduct to continue performing their duties would likely have a negative impact on the employer’s external credibility and social evaluation; that position suspension was also necessary to reduce any work disruption that might arise in the event of future dismissal or suspension from duty, given that severe disciplinary measures were anticipated; and that the requirements and procedures for position suspension had been complied with in accordance with the applicable rules.
On this basis, while leaving aside the lawfulness of the dismissal itself as a separate matter, the panel held that the position suspension in this case was a legitimate measure within the scope of the employer’s discretionary managerial authority.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, it should be noted that even if disciplinary measures such as dismissal or removal from office are imposed after a position suspension, remedial interest in challenging the position suspension as an unfair personnel measure may still be recognized where there are specific disadvantages during the suspension period, such as restrictions on promotion and salary step advancement or reductions in performance bonuses.
However, where a position suspension is imposed as a “temporary and preventive measure” in a situation where the company’s external credibility has been seriously damaged—such as by public controversy, media reports, or criminal indictment—the legitimacy of the measure may be broadly recognized, depending on the necessity of the measure and compliance with procedural requirements.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, even when using position suspension as a temporary personnel measure rather than as a disciplinary sanction, it is important to clearly stipulate in the personnel regulations or rules of employment the grounds and procedures for position suspension, as well as its effects on promotion, salary step advancement, performance bonuses, and related matters.
In particular, where there has been serious damage to external trust due to public controversy, damage to reputation and prestige, or similar circumstances arising from media reports, employers should keep thorough records and evidence to objectively substantiate: the business necessity of the position suspension; its connection to the misconduct; and the need to prevent future work disruption in anticipation of possible disciplinary measures.
2. Matters Determined
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Whether there is remedial interest in relation to the position suspension
The employer resolved to impose disciplinary “dismissal and removal from office” on the same grounds as those for the position suspension. However, because there were legal disadvantages during the suspension period—such as ineligibility for promotion, restrictions on salary step advancement, and pro‑rata calculation of performance bonuses—the employees had an interest in seeking a declaration that the position suspension was null and void.
B. Whether the position suspension was justified
The employees’ misconduct (misuse of sick leave and improper use of “work cooperation” arrangements) was reported in the media, causing public controversy and damaging the employer’s reputation and prestige, and it is difficult to regard such adverse effects as having been immediately resolved by the time of the position suspension.
In these circumstances, allowing the employees involved in the misconduct to continue performing their duties would negatively affect the employer’s external credibility and social evaluation. It cannot be categorically concluded that excluding the employees from their duties was an inappropriate response to the negative evaluation of the employer’s damaged prestige and work credibility. Accordingly, the position suspension is deemed to fall within the scope of the employer’s discretionary managerial authority.
Moreover, as severe disciplinary measures were anticipated against the employees in this case, work disruption was also expected in the event that the employees would later be dismissed or suspended from duty. The necessity of the position suspension is therefore recognized from this perspective as well. Since the requirements and procedures for the position suspension were complied with, the measure is justified.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Whether there is remedial interest in relation to the position suspension
The employer resolved to impose disciplinary “dismissal and removal from office” on the same grounds as those for the position suspension. However, because there were legal disadvantages during the suspension period—such as ineligibility for promotion, restrictions on salary step advancement, and pro‑rata calculation of performance bonuses—the employees had an interest in seeking a declaration that the position suspension was null and void.
B. Whether the position suspension was justified
The employees’ misconduct (misuse of sick leave and improper use of “work cooperation” arrangements) was reported in the media, causing public controversy and damaging the employer’s reputation and prestige, and it is difficult to regard such adverse effects as having been immediately resolved by the time of the position suspension.
In these circumstances, allowing the employees involved in the misconduct to continue performing their duties would negatively affect the employer’s external credibility and social evaluation. It cannot be categorically concluded that excluding the employees from their duties was an inappropriate response to the negative evaluation of the employer’s damaged prestige and work credibility. Accordingly, the position suspension is deemed to fall within the scope of the employer’s discretionary managerial authority.
Moreover, as severe disciplinary measures were anticipated against the employees in this case, work disruption was also expected in the event that the employees would later be dismissed or suspended from duty. The necessity of the position suspension is therefore recognized from this perspective as well. Since the requirements and procedures for the position suspension were complied with, the measure is justified. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Justifiability of Reassignment (Outsourcing of Design Work)” – Unfair Dismissal Decision
- “Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)” – Unfair Dismissal Decision
- “Denial of Employee Status (Non‑Full‑Time, Commission Linked to Sales)” – Unfair Dismissal Decision
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, remedial interest in position suspension (misconduct reported in the media), disciplinary dismissal, violation of company policy · non‑compliance with work instructions, 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, “Justifiability of Reassignment (Outsourcing of Design Work) – Unfair Dismissal Decision,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to remedial interest in position suspension (misconduct reported in the media) can be viewed under “List of Decisions on Remedial Interest in Position Suspension (Misconduct Reported in the Media).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
