[Case Information] This case is a decision in which the employee prevailed in full in a dispute over the legality of a personnel order (administrative leave based on cabin crew SNS/YouTube posts). Decision date: 2026-06-29 · Decision body: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission · Case No.: 2026Buhae1396 Key issues in summary: A. Whether the measure constituted disciplinary action (1) The employer paid the employee’s base salary in full during the period of administrative leave, (2) the notice of administrative leave stated that separate disciplinary measures could be taken in the event of any additional misconduct in the future, and (3) the direct content of the measure was to exclude the employee from flight duties for a certain period. In light of these factors, the administrative leave was held to be a personnel order, not disciplinary action. B. Whether there was a business necessity (1) The employee worked as cabin crew and posted in-flight footage and passenger-related content on SNS, YouTube, etc. … 1. Legal Implications In this unfair dismissal case, the central issue before the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission was the lawfulness of the administrative leave (standby order). Of particular importance is how the Commission viewed the nature and limits of administrative leave. The decision is especially meaningful as it sets out criteria that Labor Law Firm Law& can refer to when advising on similar matters involving personnel measures taken in response to an airline cabin crew member’s SNS/YouTube postings and the complete suspension of Daily allowance resulting therefrom. Ⅰ. Case Overview The employee worked as cabin crew for an airline and had been posting in-flight footage and passenger-related content on SNS and YouTube. The employer, viewing this as potentially violating the company’s social media guidelines, sent warning letters and the like. When the employee continued to upload passenger-related posts, the employer imposed “administrative leave” for the period up to the end of the employment contract. During the administrative leave, the employee received base salary in full, but no longer received any Daily allowance, which is paid on the premise of performing flight duties. Claiming substantial loss of income and a serious break in career continuity—amounting to significant living disadvantage—the employee filed an application for relief on the grounds of unfair dismissal (unfair personnel action). Ⅱ. Issues The issue in this case was whether a long-term administrative leave (a personnel order in the nature of a standby assignment) imposed on the basis of a cabin crew member’s SNS/YouTube postings, even if justified as an exercise of managerial prerogative supported by business necessity, nonetheless constitutes an unfair personnel measure because the resulting living disadvantage is excessive. Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings The panel held that, in light of the facts that the employer paid the employee’s base salary in full during the period of administrative leave, that the notice of administrative leave stated that “separate disciplinary measures may be taken in the event of any additional misconduct in the future,” and that the direct content of the measure was to exclude the employee from flight duties for a certain period, the administrative leave did not constitute disciplinary action imposed as a sanction for past misconduct, but rather a personnel order in the nature of a standby assignment intended to prevent future operational disruptions relating to flight safety, passenger privacy protection, and service trust. The panel further found that there was business necessity to temporarily exclude the employee from flight duties, based on: the fact that, as cabin crew, the employee had repeatedly posted in-flight footage and passenger-related content, raising concerns of violating the social media guidelines; the fact that, despite the employer’s prior warning letters demanding compliance with the rules, similar posts were made again; the fact that this conduct relates directly to the highly sensitive areas of flight safety and passenger privacy; and the fact that a complaint was filed by a senior purser raising concerns about trust in the employee’s service provision and customer response. However, because the period of administrative leave was set to last until the end of the employee’s employment contract, effectively placing the employee on near-indefinite standby; because this caused a serious break in job career, flight experience, and continuity of work; because the employee received no Daily allowance, which is paid on the premise of performing flight duties, resulting in a substantial reduction in actual wages; and because the employer neither reasonably limited the period of administrative leave nor established any procedure to review the measure after a certain period, the Commission held that, irrespective of the necessity of the standby assignment itself, the dismissal in this case was unfair in that, in terms of its duration, manner, and economic effects, it caused the employee a level of living disadvantage far exceeding what can ordinarily be expected to be borne under social norms. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) From the employee’s perspective, it should be kept in mind that even if administrative leave or a standby order does not constitute disciplinary action, it may still be challenged as an unfair personnel measure depending on its duration, the structure of wages and allowances, and the degree of career interruption. In industries where remuneration other than base salary—such as Daily allowance, performance bonuses, and various allowances—is important due to the nature of the work (aviation, transportation, sales, etc.), it is crucial, when challenging long-term standby assignments or administrative leave that completely suspend such allowances, to focus on alleging and proving the excessive nature of the resulting living disadvantage. With respect to SNS and YouTube activity, employees should familiarize themselves in advance with the company’s social media guidelines, personal data and privacy protection rules, and security rules, and must adjust their posting behavior following any employer warning. If the same or similar conduct is repeated after a warning, it is highly likely that, in any subsequent labor commission proceedings, the element of business necessity will be found against the employee. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective) From the employer’s perspective, particularly in industries such as airlines where safety and trust are paramount, it is important to establish clear internal guidelines on SNS and YouTube use, and, where a potential violation arises, to put in place procedures for explaining the specific facts to the employee in writing and providing an opportunity to correct the behavior. However, even where business necessity is objectively recognized, setting the period of administrative leave or a standby order effectively indefinitely—such as “until the end of the employment contract”—or allowing it to become prolonged without any review procedure, thereby creating a structure in which actual wages, including Daily allowance, are significantly reduced, carries a high risk of being deemed an abuse of rights and must be avoided. When designing systems for leave and standby assignments, it is advisable to: (1) specifically define the grounds for leave or standby; (2) set the period within a reasonable range; (3) establish procedures to review and determine reinstatement after a certain period; and (4) consider mechanisms to prevent excessive reductions in income other than base salary, such as allowances. Employers should consider having such personnel systems reviewed in advance for legal risk with the assistance of professional institutions such as Labor Law Firm Law&. 2. Matters Decided A. Case Overview and Procedural History This is a case in which the Commission found that, although the administrative leave constituted a personnel order in the nature of a standby assignment rather than disciplinary action, and although business necessity was recognized, the measure was unfair because the long-term standby assignment resulted in excessive living disadvantage, including non-payment of Daily allowance. 3. Summary of Findings A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings (1) Whether the measure constituted disciplinary action ① The employer paid the employee’s base salary in full during the period of administrative leave; ② the notice of administrative leave stated that separate disciplinary measures could be taken in the event of any additional misconduct in the future; and ③ the direct content of the measure was to exclude the employee from flight duties for a certain period. In light of these factors, the administrative leave was held to be a personnel order, not disciplinary action. (2) Whether there was business necessity ① The employee worked as cabin crew and posted in-flight footage and passenger-related content on SNS and YouTube; ② despite the employer’s warning letters regarding potential violations of the social media guidelines and its demand for compliance, the employee again posted passenger-related content; ③ the employee’s posting of videos could directly relate to flight safety and passenger privacy; and ④ a complaint was filed by a senior purser raising concerns about trust in the employee’s service provision and customer response. In light of these factors, business necessity to exclude the employee from duties was recognized. (3) Whether there was living disadvantage ① The period of administrative leave was set to last until the end of the employee’s employment contract; ② as a result, the employee suffered serious disadvantage in terms of job career, flight experience, and continuity of work; ③ moreover, the employee received no Daily allowance, which is paid on the premise of performing flight duties; and ④ the employer neither reasonably limited the period of administrative leave nor established any procedure to review the measure after a certain period. Taken together, these factors led to the conclusion that the measure clearly exceeded the range of disadvantage that can be tolerated under social norms. [See More Related Decisions] - ‘Business Necessity (Reassignment of Cleaner)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision - ‘Interest in Relief · Refusal to Rehire (Post-Retirement Fixed-Term Employee)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision - ‘Excessive Severity of Disciplinary Measure (Negligent Supervision/Management)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision [Tags] Unfair dismissal, Personnel order (cabin crew SNS/YouTube posts), Violation of company policy · Non-compliance with work instructions, Performance evaluation · Poor performance, Other, 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. ※ The previous article, “‘Employee Status · Expression of Intent to Resign (Office Director)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” can be viewed in a new window. ※ The list of decisions relating to personnel orders (cabin crew SNS/YouTube posts) can be viewed under “Personnel Orders (Cabin Crew SNS/YouTube Posts) Related Decisions.” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article