[Case Information] This case is a precedent in which the employee prevailed in full in a dispute over a “personnel order (cabin crew SNS·YouTube posts).” Adjudicating Body: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae1396 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal 2026-06-29 · Case Result: Employee’s claim fully upheld Key Issue Summary: (a) — 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview This unfair dismissal case was heard before the Labor Relations Commission and concerned a cabin crew member who posted in-flight recordings and passenger-related content on SNS and YouTube. The employer, viewing this as a potential violation of its social media guidelines, issued a warning letter and subsequently imposed an “administrative leave” measure that excluded the employee from flight duties for a certain period. The employee then applied to the Labor Relations Commission for a remedy, claiming that this constituted unfair dismissal and an unfair personnel measure. Ⅱ. Issues in Dispute The issue in this case was whether the “administrative leave” imposed on the cabin crew member constituted disciplinary action, and further, whether the personnel order excluding the employee from flight duties was a legitimate exercise of managerial prerogative supported by business necessity and proportionality. Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings The panel held that the administrative leave constituted a personnel order rather than disciplinary action (such as suspension from duty), in light of the following: during the administrative leave period, the employee’s base salary was paid in full; the administrative leave notice expressly distinguished the measure from discipline by stating that “separate disciplinary action may be taken in the event of additional misconduct”; and the substance of the measure was limited to excluding the employee from flight duties for a certain period. Furthermore, the panel found that the employee’s act of posting in-flight recordings and passenger-related content on SNS and YouTube potentially conflicted with the company’s social media guidelines; that the employer had previously demanded compliance with those rules by issuing warning letters; and that, given the nature of the air transport industry, excluding a crew member from duty to protect safety, service quality, and corporate image was a measure supported by business necessity. On this basis, the panel concluded that the administrative leave, as a personnel order, fell within the bounds of a legitimate measure. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) From the employee’s standpoint, it should be noted that “leave” or “grounding from duty” does not always constitute disciplinary action. Whether a measure is disciplinary or a personnel order may differ depending on factors such as whether base salary is paid, the wording used in written documents, and the purpose and background of the measure. In particular, employees in the aviation and transport sectors who engage in SNS or YouTube activities should familiarize themselves in advance with the company’s social media guidelines and security/service rules, and clearly confirm the permissible scope before filming or posting content. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective) From the employer’s perspective, when implementing personnel measures such as leave, grounding from duty, or placing an employee on standby, it is important to clearly distinguish whether the measure is disciplinary or a personnel order, and to reflect the method of wage payment, duration, and purpose consistently in the rules of employment and internal regulations. Employers should also establish concrete social media guidelines for SNS and YouTube, provide prior training and warning procedures for positions with high external exposure such as cabin crew, and limit personnel measures such as exclusion from flight duties to the necessary scope. Doing so is crucial to having such measures recognized as legitimate by the Labor Relations Commission. This decision illustrates that, in unfair dismissal disputes, personnel orders such as “leave, grounding from duty, or standby” must be systematically designed in terms of purpose, form, method of wage payment, and business necessity so that they are not evaluated as disciplinary action. To obtain a favorable decision at the Labor Relations Commission stage, it is advisable to conduct a legal review from the initial personnel-planning stage together with specialists in unfair dismissal and labor-management disputes, such as Labor Law Firm Law&. 2. Matters Adjudicated (a) Case Overview and Procedural History (a) Whether the Measure Constitutes Disciplinary Action (1) During the administrative leave period, the employer paid the employee’s base salary in full; (2) The administrative leave notice stated that separate disciplinary action could be taken in the event of additional misconduct in the future; (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 deemed a personnel order, not disciplinary action. (b) Whether There Was Business Necessity (1) The employee worked as a cabin crew member and posted in-flight recordings and passenger-related content on SNS and YouTube; (2) The employer, questioning whether this violated its social media guidelines, sent warning letters and demanded compliance with the rules… 3. Summary of the Decision (a) Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings (a) Whether the Measure Constitutes Disciplinary Action (1) During the administrative leave period, the employer paid the employee’s base salary in full; (2) The administrative leave notice stated that separate disciplinary action could be taken in the event of additional misconduct in the future; (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 deemed a personnel order, not disciplinary action. (b) Whether There Was Business Necessity (1) The employee worked as a cabin crew member and posted in-flight recordings and passenger-related content on SNS and YouTube; (2) The employer, questioning whether this violated its social media guidelines, sent warning letters and demanded compliance with the rules… / [See More Related Decisions] - “Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark During Phone Call)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning ‘Dismissal (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’” – Date of Decision: – Case Number: Dismissed [Tags] Unfair dismissal, personnel order (cabin crew SNS·YouTube posts), 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 Case Law” series by Labor Law Firm Law&. ※ The previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning ‘Employee Status·Expression of Intent to Resign (Office Manager)’,” can be viewed in a new window. ※ A list of decisions related to personnel orders (cabin crew SNS·YouTube posts) can be viewed together in the “Personnel Order (Cabin Crew SNS·YouTube Posts) Related Case List.” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article