Corporate trends / Performance record
‘Remedial Interest (Standby Order Due to Workplace Harassment)’ in Unfair Dismissal Decisions (Unfair Dismissal 508)
- Date2026/06/30 04:15
- Read 22
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the issue of “remedial interest (standby order due to workplace harassment)” was concluded by upholding the first-instance decision.
Decision body: Central Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae1280 ○ ○ ○ Application for Re‑examination of Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026-06-12 · Case outcome: First-instance decision upheld
Summary of key issue: Where a standby order has been lifted and the employee has been reinstated to a position, there is, in principle, no remedial interest in an application for remedy against an unfair standby order (Supreme Court 1987 …).
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, an employee was placed on standby by the company in the course of a dispute relating to workplace harassment. The standby order was later lifted and the employee was reinstated to a position, after which the employee filed an application with the Central Labor Relations Commission for re‑examination seeking remedies for unfair dismissal and unfair standby order. Alongside the application for remedy for unfair dismissal, the Labor Relations Commission focused its review on whether remedial interest still existed with respect to the standby order that had already been lifted.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is:
“Where a standby order has been lifted and the employee has been reinstated to a position, and where there are no separate legal disadvantages such as restrictions on promotion or pay grade advancement arising from that standby order, does remedial interest in an application for remedy against an unfair standby order still exist?”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case relied on the following points: Supreme Court precedents hold that, where a standby order or suspension from duty has been lifted and the position restored, there is, in principle, no interest in seeking a declaration of invalidity of the disposition or remedial interest in such a claim; only in exceptional circumstances—where legal disadvantages remain, such as restrictions on promotion or pay grade advancement based on the standby order—is remedial interest recognized; and factual or economic disadvantages, such as economic loss already incurred or damage to social reputation, can in principle be remedied through separate civil procedures.
As for the dismissal in this case, the panel held that the standby order merely constituted a temporary personnel measure for separation and mitigation of conflict between the employee and the workplace harassment complainant, and that, in the absence of independent legal disadvantages remaining under the personnel regulations—such as restrictions on promotion or pay grade advancement—it was difficult to view the situation otherwise. Accordingly, with respect to the standby order that had already been lifted, the panel determined that there was no longer any remedial interest to justify maintaining the Labor Relations Commission remedy procedure.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, even if a standby order is later lifted, it is essential to confirm whether that period remains a disadvantage under the personnel regulations—for example, whether it is excluded from the required service period for promotion, or whether it adversely affects pay grade or step increases. If there are no ongoing legal disadvantages such as restrictions on promotion or pay grade advancement, the employee should bear in mind that issues such as wage differentials and mental distress may need to be addressed through civil litigation or claims for damages rather than through an application for remedy against an unfair standby order.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, when using standby orders as a means of separation or conflict management in workplace harassment cases, it is important to clearly revise and maintain the relevant rules so that such measures do not lead to permanent disadvantages under the personnel regulations, such as restrictions on promotion or pay grade advancement, or exclusion from the required service period for promotion. After lifting a standby order, employers should also manage personnel records, promotion criteria, and similar systems so that the period in question is not reflected to the employee’s detriment. By doing so, employers can reduce disputes over “remedial interest” at the Labor Relations Commission stage and minimize the potential for conflict.
These legal principles can apply not only to unfair dismissal cases, but also to disputes over standby orders combined with other personnel measures such as redundancy dismissals or dismissals ex officio. Both employees and employers should therefore have an accurate understanding of the scope and limits of remedial interest.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
Where a standby order has been lifted and the employee has been reinstated to a position, there is, in principle, no remedial interest in an application for remedy against an unfair standby order (see Supreme Court Decision 87Nu560, rendered on September 8, 1987, etc.). However, even if the standby order ceases to be effective, the effects that have already arisen on the basis of the standby order do not retroactively disappear. Therefore, if there are special circumstances in which legal disadvantages such as those relating to promotion or pay grade advancement have been imposed due to the prior standby order, remedial interest is recognized (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Du18406, rendered on July 29, 2010, etc.). In this case, (1) the standby order was merely a temporary personnel measure for separation and conflict mitigation between the employee and the workplace harassment complainant …
3. Summary of Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
Where a standby order has been lifted and the employee has been reinstated to a position, there is, in principle, no remedial interest in an application for remedy against an unfair standby order (see Supreme Court Decision 87Nu560, rendered on September 8, 1987, etc.). However, even if the standby order ceases to be effective, the effects that have already arisen on the basis of the standby order do not retroactively disappear. Therefore, if there are special circumstances in which legal disadvantages such as those relating to promotion or pay grade advancement have been imposed due to the prior standby order, remedial interest is recognized (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Du18406, rendered on July 29, 2010, etc.). In this case, (1) the standby order was merely a temporary personnel measure for separation and conflict mitigation between the employee and the workplace harassment complainant … /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Dismissal of Petition (Non‑appearance at Hearing)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Dismissal Ex Officio (Three Months on Standby)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Non‑formation of Employment Offer (Absence of Offer Letter)’” – Date of decision: – Case outcome: First-instance decision upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, remedial interest (standby order due to workplace harassment), workplace harassment, 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 Labor Law Firm Law&’s “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series.
※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Dismissal of Petition (Non‑appearance at Hearing)’,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions relating to remedial interest (standby order due to workplace harassment) can be viewed together in the “List of Decisions on Remedial Interest (Standby Order Due to Workplace Harassment).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the issue of “remedial interest (standby order due to workplace harassment)” was concluded by upholding the first-instance decision.
Decision body: Central Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae1280 ○ ○ ○ Application for Re‑examination of Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026-06-12 · Case outcome: First-instance decision upheld
Summary of key issue: Where a standby order has been lifted and the employee has been reinstated to a position, there is, in principle, no remedial interest in an application for remedy against an unfair standby order (Supreme Court 1987 …).
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, an employee was placed on standby by the company in the course of a dispute relating to workplace harassment. The standby order was later lifted and the employee was reinstated to a position, after which the employee filed an application with the Central Labor Relations Commission for re‑examination seeking remedies for unfair dismissal and unfair standby order. Alongside the application for remedy for unfair dismissal, the Labor Relations Commission focused its review on whether remedial interest still existed with respect to the standby order that had already been lifted.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is:
“Where a standby order has been lifted and the employee has been reinstated to a position, and where there are no separate legal disadvantages such as restrictions on promotion or pay grade advancement arising from that standby order, does remedial interest in an application for remedy against an unfair standby order still exist?”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case relied on the following points: Supreme Court precedents hold that, where a standby order or suspension from duty has been lifted and the position restored, there is, in principle, no interest in seeking a declaration of invalidity of the disposition or remedial interest in such a claim; only in exceptional circumstances—where legal disadvantages remain, such as restrictions on promotion or pay grade advancement based on the standby order—is remedial interest recognized; and factual or economic disadvantages, such as economic loss already incurred or damage to social reputation, can in principle be remedied through separate civil procedures.
As for the dismissal in this case, the panel held that the standby order merely constituted a temporary personnel measure for separation and mitigation of conflict between the employee and the workplace harassment complainant, and that, in the absence of independent legal disadvantages remaining under the personnel regulations—such as restrictions on promotion or pay grade advancement—it was difficult to view the situation otherwise. Accordingly, with respect to the standby order that had already been lifted, the panel determined that there was no longer any remedial interest to justify maintaining the Labor Relations Commission remedy procedure.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, even if a standby order is later lifted, it is essential to confirm whether that period remains a disadvantage under the personnel regulations—for example, whether it is excluded from the required service period for promotion, or whether it adversely affects pay grade or step increases. If there are no ongoing legal disadvantages such as restrictions on promotion or pay grade advancement, the employee should bear in mind that issues such as wage differentials and mental distress may need to be addressed through civil litigation or claims for damages rather than through an application for remedy against an unfair standby order.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, when using standby orders as a means of separation or conflict management in workplace harassment cases, it is important to clearly revise and maintain the relevant rules so that such measures do not lead to permanent disadvantages under the personnel regulations, such as restrictions on promotion or pay grade advancement, or exclusion from the required service period for promotion. After lifting a standby order, employers should also manage personnel records, promotion criteria, and similar systems so that the period in question is not reflected to the employee’s detriment. By doing so, employers can reduce disputes over “remedial interest” at the Labor Relations Commission stage and minimize the potential for conflict.
These legal principles can apply not only to unfair dismissal cases, but also to disputes over standby orders combined with other personnel measures such as redundancy dismissals or dismissals ex officio. Both employees and employers should therefore have an accurate understanding of the scope and limits of remedial interest.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
Where a standby order has been lifted and the employee has been reinstated to a position, there is, in principle, no remedial interest in an application for remedy against an unfair standby order (see Supreme Court Decision 87Nu560, rendered on September 8, 1987, etc.). However, even if the standby order ceases to be effective, the effects that have already arisen on the basis of the standby order do not retroactively disappear. Therefore, if there are special circumstances in which legal disadvantages such as those relating to promotion or pay grade advancement have been imposed due to the prior standby order, remedial interest is recognized (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Du18406, rendered on July 29, 2010, etc.). In this case, (1) the standby order was merely a temporary personnel measure for separation and conflict mitigation between the employee and the workplace harassment complainant …
3. Summary of Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
Where a standby order has been lifted and the employee has been reinstated to a position, there is, in principle, no remedial interest in an application for remedy against an unfair standby order (see Supreme Court Decision 87Nu560, rendered on September 8, 1987, etc.). However, even if the standby order ceases to be effective, the effects that have already arisen on the basis of the standby order do not retroactively disappear. Therefore, if there are special circumstances in which legal disadvantages such as those relating to promotion or pay grade advancement have been imposed due to the prior standby order, remedial interest is recognized (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Du18406, rendered on July 29, 2010, etc.). In this case, (1) the standby order was merely a temporary personnel measure for separation and conflict mitigation between the employee and the workplace harassment complainant … /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Dismissal of Petition (Non‑appearance at Hearing)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Dismissal Ex Officio (Three Months on Standby)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Non‑formation of Employment Offer (Absence of Offer Letter)’” – Date of decision: – Case outcome: First-instance decision upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, remedial interest (standby order due to workplace harassment), workplace harassment, 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 Labor Law Firm Law&’s “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series.
※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Dismissal of Petition (Non‑appearance at Hearing)’,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions relating to remedial interest (standby order due to workplace harassment) can be viewed together in the “List of Decisions on Remedial Interest (Standby Order Due to Workplace Harassment).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
