[Case Information] This case is a labor commission decision in which the employee prevailed in full on the issue of whether a “personnel order (removal of appointment as security guard supervisor)” constituted unfair dismissal. Decision body: Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026BuHae509 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal 2026-07-06 · Result: Employee’s claim fully upheld Summary of key issues: Given that Article 19 of the Enforcement Rule of the Security Services Act (Designation of Supervisors) provides legal standards for designating supervisors, that Appendix 12 of the same Enforcement Rule sets out the scope of command and supervision by rank and number of personnel, and that the employees suffered economic disadvantages, the personnel order was interpreted not as a mere change of position but as a disadvantage in status. The personnel order was issued solely on the ground that the employees fell within the “bottom 10%,” without clear rules or procedures… 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview This case before the Labor Relations Commission concerned whether a personnel order issued to employees working as security guards (chungwon-gyeongchal) constituted unfair dismissal. The Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission examined, in light of the criteria for designating “supervisors” under the Enforcement Rule of the Security Services Act and the personnel principles in the collective agreement, whether this personnel order was a simple change of position or a measure akin to substantive discipline/dismissal that entailed a disadvantage in status. By virtue of the personnel order, the employees lost their status as supervisors and the associated economic benefits, thereby suffering disadvantages. They filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal, and the matter was contested before the Labor Relations Commission. This case is an example from Labor Law Firm Law&’s unfair dismissal/redundancy practice that clearly illustrates how the particular statutory framework applicable to security guards operates in such disputes. Ⅱ. Summary of Issues The issue in this case was whether “a personnel order issued to a security guard supervisor, in violation of the legal standards and procedures under the Enforcement Rule of the Security Services Act and the collective agreement, went beyond a mere change of position and constituted unfair dismissal by causing a disadvantage in status.” Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning The panel held that, in view of the following: Article 19 of the Enforcement Rule of the Security Services Act separately provides legal criteria for designating supervisors; Appendix 12 of the same Enforcement Rule specifically sets out the scope of command and supervision by rank and by number of personnel; and the removal from the supervisor position results in economic disadvantages such as reduced wages and allowances, the personnel order in question should be interpreted not as a routine adjustment of position, but as a personnel measure that causes a serious disadvantage to the employee’s status. The panel further found that the personnel order was issued solely on the basis of an abstract performance evaluation result of being in the “bottom 10%,” without clear rules or objective and reasonable criteria; that the employees were not given sufficient and specific explanations regarding the selection process and grounds; and that it was difficult to deem that the principles of fairness and rationality in personnel administration under Article 23 of the collective agreement had been observed. Taking these factors together, the panel concluded that the personnel order was a disadvantageous measure affecting status that exceeded the employer’s discretion in personnel matters and was therefore unfair. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) From the employee’s perspective, even if a measure is not labeled “dismissal,” there may be room to challenge it as unfair dismissal or unfair personnel action where removal from a supervisor role, reassignment, or placement on standby leads to reduced pay or a de facto demotion in status. In occupations such as security guards, where separate statutes set out ranks and criteria for supervisors, it is important to closely examine whether a personnel order that contravenes those criteria constitutes a disadvantage in status and to consider filing an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission. In cases where employees suffer disadvantages based solely on vague performance evaluation results such as being in the “bottom X%,” it is important to secure materials on whether the evaluation criteria were disclosed, whether the evaluation procedures were fair, and whether the personnel principles set out in the collective agreement and work rules were observed, as these will serve as key defensive tools in any subsequent dispute. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective) From the employer’s perspective, for personnel measures that directly affect status and remuneration, such as designation and removal of supervisors, it is necessary to clearly establish standards and procedures in the relevant laws and regulations (such as the Enforcement Rule of the Security Services Act), the collective agreement, and the work rules. In particular, where an employee is removed from a supervisor position or effectively demoted in rank based solely on an abstract standard such as being in the “bottom 10%,” there is a very high risk that the measure will be found to constitute unfair dismissal by the Labor Relations Commission if there are no objective data or reasonable selection criteria. Accordingly, employers should design their performance evaluation systems transparently in advance and, when taking disadvantageous personnel measures, provide employees with specific explanations of the evaluation results, reasons for selection, and legal grounds, while keeping defensible records. Where workforce adjustments are needed in connection with redundancy dismissals or organizational restructuring, employers should review not only the requirements for dismissal but also the legal nature and procedures of the personnel orders, and seek to minimize the risk of disputes through consultation with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&. 2. Matters Decided a. Case Overview and Procedural History In view of the following: Article 19 of the Enforcement Rule of the Security Services Act (Designation of Supervisors) provides legal criteria for designating supervisors; Appendix 12 of the Enforcement Rule of the Security Services Act sets out, as rank-based designation criteria, the scope of command and supervision by number of personnel; and the employees suffered economic disadvantages, the personnel order is to be interpreted as a disadvantage in status rather than a change of position. The personnel order was issued solely on the ground that the employees fell within the bottom 10%, without clear rules or procedures, and appears to lack reasonable selection criteria; the reasons for the personnel order were not specifically explained; and Article 23 of the collective agreement (Principles of Personnel Administration)… 3. Summary of the Decision a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning In view of the following: Article 19 of the Enforcement Rule of the Security Services Act (Designation of Supervisors) provides legal criteria for designating supervisors; Appendix 12 of the Enforcement Rule of the Security Services Act sets out, as rank-based designation criteria, the scope of command and supervision by number of personnel; and the employees suffered economic disadvantages, the personnel order is to be interpreted as a disadvantage in status rather than a change of position. The personnel order was issued solely on the ground that the employees fell within the bottom 10%, without clear rules or procedures, and appears to lack reasonable selection criteria; the reasons for the personnel order were not specifically explained; and Article 23 of the collective agreement (Principles of Personnel Administration)… / [See More Related Decisions] - “Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning ‘Denial of Employee Status (Service Contract)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning ‘Dismissal of Application (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’” – Date of decision: – Case number: Dismissal of application - “Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’” [Tags] Unfair dismissal, personnel order (removal of appointment 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&. ※ The previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning ‘Denial of Employee Status (Service Contract)’,” can be viewed in a new window. ※ The list of decisions related to personnel orders (removal of appointment as security guard supervisor) can be viewed together on the “List of Decisions Related to Personnel Orders (Removal of Appointment as Security Guard Supervisor)” page. ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article