[Case Information] This case is a precedent in which the employee prevailed in full on the issue of “remedial interest (70% wage during standby order).” Adjudicating body: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026BuHae1287 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal 2026-07-01 · Disposition: Fully Upheld Summary of key issues: (a) 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview This case concerns an application for remedy for unfair dismissal and unfair personnel action, where the employer issued a standby order to the employee on the grounds of organizational restructuring, and paid only 70% of the employee’s ordinary wages during the standby period. The employee applied to the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission, arguing not only that the standby order itself was unjustified, but also that, even if the standby order had already been lifted, the employee could still seek a remedy before the Labor Relations Commission so long as disadvantages such as wage reduction remained. As in many similar cases handled by Labor Law Firm Law&, the core issue was whether the employer had abused its personnel authority in issuing the standby order. The issue in this case was: “Even if the standby order has been lifted, does remedial interest exist for unfair dismissal/unfair personnel action where a legal disadvantage remains, such as payment of only 70% of wages during the standby period? And can the standby order be recognized as a legitimate exercise of personnel authority based solely on the employer’s asserted need for organizational restructuring?” The adjudicating panel in this case noted that the employer had submitted no specific reasons or objective evidence regarding the alleged need for organizational restructuring or business necessity; that the employer effectively admitted insufficient proof by stating it could not provide evidence because the matter was a “business secret”; and that the disciplinary grounds attributed to the employee did not rise to a level that would justify the need to continue an investigation by placing the employee on standby. Accordingly, the panel held that the dismissal in this case—both the standby order itself and the accompanying measure of paying only 70% of wages—fell outside the bounds of permissible managerial discretion and was therefore unfair. Ⅱ. Summary of Issues The key issues in this case were: “(1) Whether remedial interest exists to seek relief from the Labor Relations Commission for an unfair standby order even when the standby order has already ended, if a legal disadvantage remains, such as wages being reduced to 70% during that period; and (2) whether a standby order that imposes a serious adverse impact on the employee’s livelihood can be regarded as a legitimate personnel order where the employer has failed to specifically substantiate the alleged need for organizational restructuring or business necessity.” Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings First, the Labor Relations Commission recognized remedial interest in challenging the standby order itself, in light of the fact that only 70% of wages had been paid during the standby period and that the resulting legal and economic disadvantages still remained. Second, the Commission found that the employer had not submitted any specific reasons or supporting materials regarding the claimed organizational restructuring or business necessity, and had in fact declined to provide proof on the ground of “confidentiality.” Third, the Commission concluded that the disciplinary reasons cited as grounds for the standby order did not establish an urgent and serious necessity sufficient to justify excluding the employee from duties. Taken together, the Commission held that the business necessity for the standby order was not established, that the comparative balancing against the employee’s livelihood disadvantages was not satisfied, and that the consultation and explanation procedures required under the principle of good faith had not been met. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) From the employee’s standpoint, it is important to bear in mind that, even if a standby order has already been lifted, an application for remedy for an unfair standby order may still be filed with the Labor Relations Commission where legal disadvantages remain, such as reduced wages during the standby period or restrictions on promotion or salary increases. In addition, if the employer merely invokes vague grounds such as “organizational restructuring” or “confidential reasons” without presenting concrete evidence, the business necessity of the standby order and its legitimacy as an exercise of personnel authority can be sufficiently contested. Employees should therefore carefully secure objective materials such as pay statements from the relevant period, personnel order documents, and notices sent by email or messenger. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective) From the employer’s standpoint, where a standby order is accompanied by disadvantages such as wage reduction or promotion restrictions, it may fall within the scope of “transfer or other disciplinary measures” under Article 23 of the Labor Standards Act and become subject to review by the Labor Relations Commission. Employers must therefore prepare in advance specific grounds of business necessity and supporting evidence. In particular, when issuing standby orders for reasons such as organizational restructuring, workforce adjustment comparable to redundancy, or disciplinary investigation, employers should document the reasons and background, whether alternative measures were considered, measures taken to mitigate the employee’s livelihood disadvantages, and the details of any consultation and explanation procedures. Such records will be essential to defending against allegations of abuse of managerial discretion in any future dispute. To prevent this type of dispute and to ensure that personnel measures are recognized as reasonable exercises of managerial authority at the Labor Relations Commission or in court, employers are advised to design their HR strategy in advance and review necessary evidence and procedures together with experts who have extensive experience in unfair dismissal, standby orders, and redundancy cases, such as Labor Law Firm Law&. 2. Matters Adjudicated (a) Case Overview and Procedural History (a) Whether there is remedial interest in respect of the standby orders In light of the fact that only 70% of wages were paid during the standby period and that the resulting legal disadvantages still remain, remedial interest is recognized. (b) Whether the standby orders are justified (business necessity, degree of livelihood disadvantage, and compliance with consultation procedures required under the principle of good faith) The employer submitted no specific reasons or supporting evidence regarding the alleged business necessity such as organizational restructuring, and effectively admitted insufficient proof by stating that the reasons were business secrets and therefore could not be substantiated. The disciplinary reasons attributed to the employee do not, in themselves, establish a necessity so compelling as to justify continuing an investigation by placing the employee on standby … 3. Summary of Decision (a) Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings (a) Whether there is remedial interest in respect of the standby orders In light of the fact that only 70% of wages were paid during the standby period and that the resulting legal disadvantages still remain, remedial interest is recognized. (b) Whether the standby orders are justified (business necessity, degree of livelihood disadvantage, and compliance with consultation procedures required under the principle of good faith) The employer submitted no specific reasons or supporting evidence regarding the alleged business necessity such as organizational restructuring, and effectively admitted insufficient proof by stating that the reasons were business secrets and therefore could not be substantiated. The disciplinary reasons attributed to the employee do not, in themselves, establish a necessity so compelling as to justify continuing an investigation by placing the employee on standby … / [See More Related Decisions] - “Unfair Dismissal Case on ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Case on ‘Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’” – Date of decision: – Case number: Initial Decision Upheld - “Unfair Dismissal Case on ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’” [Tags] Unfair dismissal, remedial interest (70% wage during standby order), performance evaluation · poor performance, violation of company policy · non-compliance with work instructions, 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 on ‘Removal from Position (Abolition of General Manager of Administration)’,” can be viewed in a new window. ※ The list of decisions related to remedial interest (70% wage during standby order) can be viewed together at “List of Decisions on Remedial Interest (70% Wage During Standby Order).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article