[Case Information] This case concerns a decision on the effectiveness of a personnel appointment (removal of designation as a security guard supervisor) that concluded with a full victory for the employees. Decision date: 2026-07-06 · Decision body: Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission · Case No.: 2026부해509 Key issue summary: In light of the fact that Article 19 of the Enforcement Rule of the Security Services Act (Designation of Supervisors) provides legal criteria for the designation of supervisors, and that Appendix 12 to the Enforcement Rule of the Security Services Act sets out, as rank-based designation criteria, the scope of personnel subject to command and supervision according to the number of staff, and that the employees suffered economic disadvantages, the personnel appointment is to be interpreted not as a mere change of position but as a disadvantage in status. The personnel appointment was made solely on the ground that the employees fell within the bottom 10%, without clear rules or procedures, and… 1. Legal Implications This unfair dismissal case, heard before the Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission, concerns the effectiveness of a personnel appointment, and is a case in which the Commission focused on whether there had been an abuse of managerial authority over personnel. In particular, it clearly illustrates how a personnel measure that stripped an employee of a supervisory position on the vague ground of being in the “bottom 10%,” while disregarding the designation criteria for supervisors under the Security Services Act, violates the standards for “proper exercise of managerial authority over personnel” that Labor Law Firm Law& has repeatedly emphasized. Ⅰ. Case Overview The employer issued a personnel appointment removing the designation as supervisor for those among the security guards who were said to fall within the bottom 10% based on performance evaluations. As a result of this appointment, the employees not only lost their supervisory positions, but also suffered economic disadvantages due to changes in rank and scope of command under the Enforcement Rule of the Security Services Act. They therefore filed an application for relief, including for unfair dismissal, and the Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission conducted a hearing. Ⅱ. Issues The issue in this case is whether the personnel appointment imposed on the security guard supervisors was merely a change of position, or whether it constituted “other punishment” that causes serious economic and status-related disadvantages and thus amounts to an unfair dismissal subject to relief by the Labor Relations Commission. Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings The panel in this case noted that Article 19 of the Enforcement Rule of the Security Services Act and Appendix 12 thereto specifically set out the legal criteria for the designation of supervisors and the scope of personnel subject to command and supervision by rank; that the employees actually suffered economic disadvantages such as reduced wages due to the removal of their designation as supervisors; that this personnel appointment was made solely on the abstract ground that they were in the “bottom 10%,” without clear rules or procedures and without any apparent objective and reasonable selection criteria; that the reasons for the personnel appointment were not specifically explained to the employees; and that, contrary to the principles of personnel administration set out in the collective agreement, there had been no consultation with the labor union and no notification to the labor union under the provisions on the Personnel Committee. The Commission therefore held that this dismissal measure, disguised as a change of position, in fact constituted a disposition imposing disadvantages in terms of status and economic interests, and fell under “other punishment.” It was thus an abuse of the employer’s discretionary authority over personnel and unfair. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) From the employee’s perspective, even a personnel appointment that appears to be “only a change of position” may be challenged as an unfair dismissal or other punishment if it entails substantive disadvantages in status, such as a reduction in wages or a demotion in rank. In occupations such as security guards, where laws or enforcement rules stipulate rank and supervisory criteria, employees should carefully check whether the personnel appointment deviates from those criteria and whether the principles of personnel administration and the consultation/notification procedures under the collective agreement have been observed. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective) From the employer’s perspective, even if a personnel appointment is not labeled as a “disciplinary measure,” unlike suspension from duty, transfer, or removal from office, it may still be reviewed by the Labor Relations Commission as “other punishment” if it causes substantive disadvantages in legal status or wages. Therefore, when adjusting positions based on performance evaluation results, employers should: first, comply with the personnel procedures under applicable laws, enforcement rules, and collective agreements; second, establish and disclose objective and reasonable selection criteria in advance; and third, provide specific explanations of the individual reasons for each personnel measure, thereby ensuring procedural fairness so that the measure does not appear to be an abuse of rights. 2. Matters Decided a. Case Overview and Procedural History This is a case in which the personnel appointment was held to constitute “other punishment” and to be unfair as it exceeded the scope of the employer’s discretionary authority. 3. Summary of the Decision a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings In light of the fact that Article 19 of the Enforcement Rule of the Security Services Act (Designation of Supervisors) provides legal criteria for the designation of supervisors, that Appendix 12 to the Enforcement Rule of the Security Services Act sets out, as rank-based designation criteria, the scope of personnel subject to command and supervision according to the number of staff, and that the employees suffered economic disadvantages, the personnel appointment is to be interpreted as a disadvantage in status rather than a mere change of position. The appointment was made solely on the ground that the employees fell within the bottom 10%, without clear rules or procedures and without any apparent reasonable selection criteria; the reasons for the personnel appointment were not specifically explained; there was no consultation with the labor union under Article 23 (Principles of Personnel Administration) of the collective agreement; and there was no notification to the labor union under Article 25 (Personnel Committee) of the collective agreement. Accordingly, it constituted an abuse of rights and was unfair. [See More Related Decisions] - ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision on “Interest in Relief · Refusal to Rehire (Post-Retirement Fixed-Term Employment)”’ - ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision on “Expectation of Succession of Employment (Competitive Bidding for Logistics Center)”’ - ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision on “Dismissal (Non-Appearance at Hearing)”’ – Decision date: - · Case No.: Dismissal [Tags] Unfair dismissal, personnel appointment (removal of designation as security guard supervisor), performance evaluation · poor performance, 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, ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision on “Denial of Employee Status (Service Contract)”’, in a new window. ※ You can also view the list of decisions related to personnel appointments (removal of designation as security guard supervisor) at the “List of Decisions Related to Personnel Appointments (Removal of Designation as Security Guard Supervisor).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article