Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Decision on “Dismissal by Authority (Three Months After Placement on Standby)” (Unfair Dismissal 506)
- Date2026/06/30 04:05
- Read 21
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “dismissal by authority (three months after placement on standby).”
Decision Committee: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae1278 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026-06-15 · Case Result: Dismissed
Summary of Key Issues: The personnel regulations provided that an employee placed on standby may be dismissed by authority upon resolution of the Personnel Committee if the employee is not assigned a position or duties even after three months have elapsed. Taking into account that there was no explanation or evidence that the grounds for the standby order had disappeared during the standby period and that no change in circumstances was identified, the Commission held that, at the time of the standby order, there already existed reasons, under social norms, making it impossible to continue the employment relationship between the worker and the union in this case...
1. Legal Implications
In this unfair dismissal case, the legitimacy of a dismissal by authority following a placement on standby was the key issue before the Labor Relations Commission. This is also a type of case frequently consulted on at Labor Law Firm Law&. In particular, the questions were how to interpret the provision in the personnel regulations stating that “upon the lapse of three months after placement on standby, the employee may be dismissed by authority upon resolution of the Personnel Committee,” and whether such dismissal by authority constitutes an unfair dismissal.
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, after the worker was placed on standby by the employer, the worker remained without any position or duties assigned until three months had elapsed, in accordance with the personnel regulations. The employer, after obtaining a resolution of the Personnel Committee, dismissed the worker by authority. The worker claimed that this constituted an unfair dismissal and filed an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission.
Ⅱ. Issues
The issue in this case was whether “the measure of dismissing by authority, upon resolution of the Personnel Committee, a worker who was not assigned a position until three months had elapsed after being placed on standby in accordance with the personnel regulations, constitutes a dismissal with just cause under the Labor Standards Act, or whether it constitutes an unfair dismissal.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case noted that the employer’s personnel regulations expressly stipulated that an employee placed on standby may be dismissed by authority upon resolution of the Personnel Committee if the employee is not assigned a position or duties even after three months have elapsed; that during the standby period there was no explanation from the worker that the grounds for the standby order had disappeared, nor was any change in circumstances identified; and that, taken together, these circumstances indicate that, at the time of the standby order, there already existed reasons, under social norms, making it impossible to continue the employment relationship between the worker and the employer.
On the basis that the dismissal by authority following the standby order was carried out through the procedures envisaged in the personnel regulations; that the grounds for the standby order were not resolved during the passage of time and no separate circumstances of recovery appeared; and that, even if the standby order and the dismissal by authority are viewed as a single measure, it is difficult to find circumstances amounting to an abuse of managerial authority or disciplinary power,
the Commission held that the dismissal in this case did not constitute an unfair dismissal but was a legitimate dismissal by authority, and therefore dismissed the worker’s application for remedy.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective)
From the worker’s perspective, it should be noted that a placement on standby is not merely a temporary waiting measure, but, under personnel regulations, can become the “starting point of a de facto dismissal procedure” that may lead to dismissal by authority or automatic retirement after a certain period has elapsed. Accordingly, if you are placed on standby, you should actively accumulate materials that can prove that the grounds are unjust or have already been resolved (such as evidence of improved work performance, elimination of disciplinary grounds, conclusion of criminal proceedings, etc.), and closely monitor, during the standby period, any moves by the employer to convene a Personnel Committee or to consider dismissal.
As seen in court precedents and in this decision, the key question is whether, at the time of the standby order or during the standby period, there existed reasons, under social norms, making it impossible to continue the employment relationship. It is therefore very important, for any future dispute before the Labor Relations Commission, to organize concrete facts and materials demonstrating that you do not have such serious reasons.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, if personnel regulations link placement on standby to dismissal by authority, it is necessary, first, to clearly secure the legitimacy of the initial standby order, and second, to retain objective materials showing that the grounds for the standby order were not resolved during the standby period. In particular, as the Supreme Court and commentators repeatedly emphasize, measures that proceed from placement on standby to dismissal by authority or automatic retirement after a certain period are, in substance, dismissals. Therefore, the employer must be able to prove that there are just causes under Article 23 of the Labor Standards Act.
In addition, rather than going through the Personnel Committee resolution procedure merely as a formality, the employer should record in detail, in the minutes and resolution documents, the grounds for the standby order, whether there were any changes in circumstances during the period, and the content of the worker’s explanations. This will allow the employer to persuasively argue, before the Labor Relations Commission or the courts, that there was no abuse of managerial authority.
Finally, because placement on standby followed by dismissal by authority can produce results similar to a redundancy dismissal, it is crucial, for dispute prevention, to sufficiently secure procedural fairness in advance by refining the wording of the personnel regulations, clarifying the grounds for standby orders, and providing opportunities for explanation.
2. Matters Determined
a. Case Overview and Procedural History
The personnel regulations provide that an employee who has been placed on standby may be dismissed by authority upon resolution of the Personnel Committee if the employee is not assigned a position or duties even after three months have elapsed. Taking into account that, during the standby period, there was no explanation that the grounds giving rise to the standby order had disappeared and that no change in circumstances was identified, it is deemed that, at the time of the standby order, there already existed reasons, under social norms, making it impossible to continue the employment relationship between the worker and the union in this case. The employer, pursuant to Articles 61(2) and 61(4) of the personnel regulations, obtained a resolution of the Personnel Committee to dismiss the worker by authority...
3. Summary of the Decision
a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The personnel regulations provide that an employee who has been placed on standby may be dismissed by authority upon resolution of the Personnel Committee if the employee is not assigned a position or duties even after three months have elapsed. Taking into account that, during the standby period, there was no explanation that the grounds giving rise to the standby order had disappeared and that no change in circumstances was identified, it is deemed that, at the time of the standby order, there already existed reasons, under social norms, making it impossible to continue the employment relationship between the worker and the union in this case. The employer, pursuant to Articles 61(2) and 61(4) of the personnel regulations, obtained a resolution of the Personnel Committee to dismiss the worker by authority... /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “‘Non-Formation of Hiring Decision (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Related Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Date of Decision: – Case Result: Initial Decision Upheld
- “‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ Related Unfair Dismissal Decision”
- “‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Phone Call)’ Related Unfair Dismissal Decision”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, dismissal by authority (three months after placement on standby), 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&.
※ You can view the previous article, “‘Deviation from Labor Union Activities (Secondary Sexual Harassment Email)’ Related Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to dismissal by authority (three months after placement on standby) can be viewed together at “List of Decisions Related to Dismissal by Authority (Three Months After Placement on Standby).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “dismissal by authority (three months after placement on standby).”
Decision Committee: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae1278 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026-06-15 · Case Result: Dismissed
Summary of Key Issues: The personnel regulations provided that an employee placed on standby may be dismissed by authority upon resolution of the Personnel Committee if the employee is not assigned a position or duties even after three months have elapsed. Taking into account that there was no explanation or evidence that the grounds for the standby order had disappeared during the standby period and that no change in circumstances was identified, the Commission held that, at the time of the standby order, there already existed reasons, under social norms, making it impossible to continue the employment relationship between the worker and the union in this case...
1. Legal Implications
In this unfair dismissal case, the legitimacy of a dismissal by authority following a placement on standby was the key issue before the Labor Relations Commission. This is also a type of case frequently consulted on at Labor Law Firm Law&. In particular, the questions were how to interpret the provision in the personnel regulations stating that “upon the lapse of three months after placement on standby, the employee may be dismissed by authority upon resolution of the Personnel Committee,” and whether such dismissal by authority constitutes an unfair dismissal.
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, after the worker was placed on standby by the employer, the worker remained without any position or duties assigned until three months had elapsed, in accordance with the personnel regulations. The employer, after obtaining a resolution of the Personnel Committee, dismissed the worker by authority. The worker claimed that this constituted an unfair dismissal and filed an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission.
Ⅱ. Issues
The issue in this case was whether “the measure of dismissing by authority, upon resolution of the Personnel Committee, a worker who was not assigned a position until three months had elapsed after being placed on standby in accordance with the personnel regulations, constitutes a dismissal with just cause under the Labor Standards Act, or whether it constitutes an unfair dismissal.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case noted that the employer’s personnel regulations expressly stipulated that an employee placed on standby may be dismissed by authority upon resolution of the Personnel Committee if the employee is not assigned a position or duties even after three months have elapsed; that during the standby period there was no explanation from the worker that the grounds for the standby order had disappeared, nor was any change in circumstances identified; and that, taken together, these circumstances indicate that, at the time of the standby order, there already existed reasons, under social norms, making it impossible to continue the employment relationship between the worker and the employer.
On the basis that the dismissal by authority following the standby order was carried out through the procedures envisaged in the personnel regulations; that the grounds for the standby order were not resolved during the passage of time and no separate circumstances of recovery appeared; and that, even if the standby order and the dismissal by authority are viewed as a single measure, it is difficult to find circumstances amounting to an abuse of managerial authority or disciplinary power,
the Commission held that the dismissal in this case did not constitute an unfair dismissal but was a legitimate dismissal by authority, and therefore dismissed the worker’s application for remedy.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective)
From the worker’s perspective, it should be noted that a placement on standby is not merely a temporary waiting measure, but, under personnel regulations, can become the “starting point of a de facto dismissal procedure” that may lead to dismissal by authority or automatic retirement after a certain period has elapsed. Accordingly, if you are placed on standby, you should actively accumulate materials that can prove that the grounds are unjust or have already been resolved (such as evidence of improved work performance, elimination of disciplinary grounds, conclusion of criminal proceedings, etc.), and closely monitor, during the standby period, any moves by the employer to convene a Personnel Committee or to consider dismissal.
As seen in court precedents and in this decision, the key question is whether, at the time of the standby order or during the standby period, there existed reasons, under social norms, making it impossible to continue the employment relationship. It is therefore very important, for any future dispute before the Labor Relations Commission, to organize concrete facts and materials demonstrating that you do not have such serious reasons.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, if personnel regulations link placement on standby to dismissal by authority, it is necessary, first, to clearly secure the legitimacy of the initial standby order, and second, to retain objective materials showing that the grounds for the standby order were not resolved during the standby period. In particular, as the Supreme Court and commentators repeatedly emphasize, measures that proceed from placement on standby to dismissal by authority or automatic retirement after a certain period are, in substance, dismissals. Therefore, the employer must be able to prove that there are just causes under Article 23 of the Labor Standards Act.
In addition, rather than going through the Personnel Committee resolution procedure merely as a formality, the employer should record in detail, in the minutes and resolution documents, the grounds for the standby order, whether there were any changes in circumstances during the period, and the content of the worker’s explanations. This will allow the employer to persuasively argue, before the Labor Relations Commission or the courts, that there was no abuse of managerial authority.
Finally, because placement on standby followed by dismissal by authority can produce results similar to a redundancy dismissal, it is crucial, for dispute prevention, to sufficiently secure procedural fairness in advance by refining the wording of the personnel regulations, clarifying the grounds for standby orders, and providing opportunities for explanation.
2. Matters Determined
a. Case Overview and Procedural History
The personnel regulations provide that an employee who has been placed on standby may be dismissed by authority upon resolution of the Personnel Committee if the employee is not assigned a position or duties even after three months have elapsed. Taking into account that, during the standby period, there was no explanation that the grounds giving rise to the standby order had disappeared and that no change in circumstances was identified, it is deemed that, at the time of the standby order, there already existed reasons, under social norms, making it impossible to continue the employment relationship between the worker and the union in this case. The employer, pursuant to Articles 61(2) and 61(4) of the personnel regulations, obtained a resolution of the Personnel Committee to dismiss the worker by authority...
3. Summary of the Decision
a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The personnel regulations provide that an employee who has been placed on standby may be dismissed by authority upon resolution of the Personnel Committee if the employee is not assigned a position or duties even after three months have elapsed. Taking into account that, during the standby period, there was no explanation that the grounds giving rise to the standby order had disappeared and that no change in circumstances was identified, it is deemed that, at the time of the standby order, there already existed reasons, under social norms, making it impossible to continue the employment relationship between the worker and the union in this case. The employer, pursuant to Articles 61(2) and 61(4) of the personnel regulations, obtained a resolution of the Personnel Committee to dismiss the worker by authority... /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “‘Non-Formation of Hiring Decision (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Related Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Date of Decision: – Case Result: Initial Decision Upheld
- “‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ Related Unfair Dismissal Decision”
- “‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Phone Call)’ Related Unfair Dismissal Decision”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, dismissal by authority (three months after placement on standby), 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&.
※ You can view the previous article, “‘Deviation from Labor Union Activities (Secondary Sexual Harassment Email)’ Related Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to dismissal by authority (three months after placement on standby) can be viewed together at “List of Decisions Related to Dismissal by Authority (Three Months After Placement on Standby).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
