[Case Information] This case concerns a decision in which the employee prevailed in full on the issue of “lack of business necessity (waiting assignment following refusal of 30% salary reduction).” Decision body: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae2286 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal 2026-08-11 · Outcome: Employee’s claim fully upheld Summary of key issues: The Commission found that the employer appeared to have placed the employee on waiting assignment because the employee did not agree to a 30% reduction in annual salary; that there was insufficient evidence to find that the reasons asserted by the employer for the waiting assignment fell under the grounds stipulated in the company’s system management regulations; and that it was also difficult to view the waiting assignment as a measure taken to overcome a management crisis. Taking these factors together, the Commission held that it was difficult to recognize business necessity for the waiting assignment and that it therefore constituted an unfair waiting assignment. 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview In this case, the employer demanded that the employee accept a 30% reduction in annual salary, and when the employee did not agree, imposed a waiting assignment. The issue before the Labor Relations Commission was whether this measure constituted unfair dismissal and an unfair waiting assignment. The Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission examined both the company’s system management regulations and its actual management circumstances, and comprehensively assessed the business necessity and legitimacy of the waiting assignment. Ⅱ. Summary of Issues The issue in this case is: “Whether a waiting assignment imposed solely because an employee refused a demand for a 30% reduction in annual salary—where the basis in the personnel regulations is unclear and the management need is not evident—constitutes a legitimate personnel order, or whether it amounts to an unfair waiting assignment equivalent in nature to unfair dismissal.” Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings The decision panel in this case found that the employer appeared to have placed the employee on waiting assignment because the employee did not agree to the 30% salary reduction; that there was a lack of objective evidence to find that the reasons asserted by the employer for the waiting assignment fell under the grounds for waiting assignment stipulated in its own system management regulations; and that it was also difficult to view the waiting assignment as a personnel measure in the nature of restructuring or redundancy dismissal taken as a means to overcome a management crisis, given that specific management necessity and inevitability had not been substantiated. The Commission held that the waiting assignment was far removed from generally recognized grounds for waiting assignment, such as lack of job performance capability, poor work attitude, or indictment in a criminal case, and that the employer had not clearly proven that it was for the purpose of adjusting surplus personnel for management reasons. Accordingly, it was difficult to recognize business necessity for the measure as an exercise of managerial prerogative. Although the employer’s measure took the form of a waiting assignment, in substance it appeared to be a means of coercing the employee to agree to a wage reduction. As it could not be regarded as a legitimate personnel order under the Labor Standards Act, the Commission held that it constituted an unfair waiting assignment. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) From the employee’s perspective, when an employer seeks to force agreement to a salary reduction or other disadvantageous change in working conditions and, upon refusal, imposes measures such as waiting assignment or suspension from position, the core issues will be whether there is business necessity for such personnel measures and whether there is a regulatory basis for them. If you receive a notice of waiting assignment, you should review and organize: (i) the grounds and procedures for waiting assignment stipulated in the company’s rules of employment and personnel regulations, (ii) whether there is an actual management need, and (iii) the degree of hardship and disadvantage to your livelihood. Based on this, you should consider filing an application with the Labor Relations Commission for a remedy for unfair dismissal and unfair waiting assignment. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective) From the employer’s perspective, when pursuing major changes to wages or working conditions, such as a 30% reduction in annual salary, there is a high risk that abusing waiting assignment against employees who refuse such changes will be found to constitute unfair dismissal and an abuse of rights. To implement a waiting assignment, it is necessary to confirm: (i) whether the situation falls under the grounds expressly set out in the rules of employment and personnel regulations; (ii) whether there is an objective business necessity, such as a management crisis or surplus personnel; and (iii) if the measure is similar to restructuring in the nature of redundancy dismissal, whether the statutory requirements for redundancy dismissal under the Labor Standards Act (urgent managerial necessity, efforts to avoid dismissal, reasonable selection criteria, and good-faith consultation) have been fully satisfied. In cases of this type, it is advisable to obtain advice from a specialized labor law firm such as Labor Law Firm Law&, to ensure that the grounds for waiting assignment are properly aligned with internal regulations and to review in advance whether the standards of “business necessity” and “procedural fairness” required by Labor Relations Commission and court precedents are met. 2. Matters Decided A. Case Overview and Procedural History The Commission found that the employer appeared to have placed the employee on waiting assignment because the employee did not agree to the 30% salary reduction; that there was insufficient evidence to find that the reasons asserted by the employer for the waiting assignment fell under the grounds stipulated in the system management regulations; and that it was also difficult to view the waiting assignment as a measure taken to overcome a management crisis. Taking these factors together, the Commission held that it was difficult to recognize business necessity for the waiting assignment and that it therefore constituted an unfair waiting assignment. 3. Summary of Decision A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings The Commission found that the employer appeared to have placed the employee on waiting assignment because the employee did not agree to the 30% salary reduction; that there was insufficient evidence to find that the reasons asserted by the employer for the waiting assignment fell under the grounds stipulated in the system management regulations; and that it was also difficult to view the waiting assignment as a measure taken to overcome a management crisis. Taking these factors together, the Commission held that it was difficult to recognize business necessity for the waiting assignment and that it therefore constituted an unfair waiting assignment. [See More Related Decisions] - “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark Made by Phone Call)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’” – Date of decision: – Case number: Initial decision upheld [Tags] Unfair dismissal, lack of business necessity (waiting assignment following refusal of 30% salary reduction), 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&. ※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Expectation of Conversion to Indefinite-Term Contract (Evaluation Score Below 70 Points)’,” in a new window. ※ A list of decisions related to lack of business necessity (waiting assignment following refusal of 30% salary reduction) can be found under “List of Decisions Related to Lack of Business Necessity (Waiting Assignment Following Refusal of 30% Salary Reduction).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article