[Case Information] This case is a decision in which the employee prevailed (full acceptance) on the issue of an “order to suspend work (non‑payment of 30% of average wages).” Adjudicating body: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026부해2715 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal 2026-08-03 · Outcome: Full acceptance Key issue summary: a. 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview In this case, the employer, citing organizational restructuring and workforce reduction, issued an order to suspend work to certain employees and paid only 70% of their average wages during the suspension period. This led to an application for remedy for unfair dismissal and unfair labor practices. The employees were members of a labor union and filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal with the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission. The Commission focused its review on the legitimacy of the order to suspend work and whether it constituted an unfair labor practice. Ⅱ. Summary of Issues The issue in this case is “whether an order to suspend work, based on organizational restructuring and workforce reduction, is justified when considering both business necessity and the degree of disadvantage to the employees’ livelihood, and whether such order to suspend work constitutes an unfair labor practice in the form of discrimination against, or domination or interference with, union members.” Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings In this case, the panel held that, although the employer claimed that the employees’ duties had been eliminated due to organizational restructuring and workforce reduction, it was difficult to find that the business necessity of the order to suspend work had been proven based solely on the materials submitted, which did not sufficiently show what specific duties had been eliminated, how they had been eliminated, or whether there was a possibility of assigning alternative work. It also noted that, under the Labor Standards Act, if the suspension of work is attributable to reasons for which the employer is responsible, the employer must pay at least 70% of the average wages, yet the employees were not paid approximately 30% of their average wages, resulting in excessive disadvantage to their livelihood. The Commission therefore held that the dismissal in this case was unfair, on the grounds that the order to suspend work itself is a disadvantageous measure that prohibits the provision of labor for a certain period while maintaining the employee’s status, and that, under the criteria for determining its legitimacy, both “business necessity” and “degree of disadvantage to livelihood” must be considered together, but in this case neither requirement could be regarded as having been satisfied. On the other hand, regarding whether the order to suspend work constituted an unfair labor practice, the Commission found that there was no objective evidence that union membership had been used as a criterion in selecting the employees subject to the suspension, and that the mere fact that the timing of the order to suspend work was close to the normalization of collective bargaining was insufficient to recognize an intent to interfere with, dominate, or obstruct union activities. Accordingly, it held that the order did not constitute an unfair labor practice. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) From the employee’s perspective, it is necessary to carefully check whether there is in fact elimination of duties or managerial necessity when the employer issues an order to suspend work, whether there was a possibility of reassignment to other duties, and whether the suspension allowance meets the statutory standard of at least 70% of average wages under the Labor Standards Act. If the order to suspend work leads to a substantial reduction in wages and an excessive disadvantage to livelihood, it should be remembered that there may be room to challenge it not merely as a personnel measure, but as a disadvantageous measure equivalent to unfair dismissal. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective) From the employer’s side, an order to suspend work may be used as a means to avoid redundancy dismissals, but it is necessary to prepare in advance sufficient materials capable of proving “business necessity,” such as the specific details of duty elimination and organizational restructuring, the process of reviewing alternative work assignments, and workforce management plans. It is also important to strictly comply with the statutory obligation to pay suspension allowances (at least 70% of average wages) under the Labor Standards Act, and to document that the criteria for selecting employees subject to suspension were objective and reasonable and were set and operated independently of union membership, so that this can be explained in the event of a dispute. In disputes involving this type of suspension of work and redundancy dismissal, it is advisable to seek assistance from experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&, to accurately understand the legal principles on “business necessity” and “disadvantage to livelihood” as required by the Labor Relations Commission, and to systematically organize the facts and evidence in line with those principles. 2. Matters Adjudicated a. Case Overview and Procedural History a. Legitimacy of the Order to Suspend Work The employer argued that the duties performed by the employees had been eliminated due to organizational restructuring and workforce reduction. However, based solely on the materials submitted by the employer, the business necessity of the order to suspend work was not proven, and, compared to any business necessity, the disadvantage to livelihood caused by the employees’ failure to receive 30% of their average wages during the suspension was excessive, rendering the measure unfair. b. Whether the Order to Suspend Work Constitutes an Unfair Labor Practice There was no basis to find that the employees were selected as subjects of the order to suspend work solely because they were union members, and the mere fact that the timing of the order to suspend work was close to the normalization of collective bargaining was insufficient to regard it as domination or interference with union activities. 3. Gist of the Decision a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings a. Legitimacy of the Order to Suspend Work The employer argued that the duties performed by the employees had been eliminated due to organizational restructuring and workforce reduction. However, based solely on the materials submitted by the employer, the business necessity of the order to suspend work was not proven, and, compared to any business necessity, the disadvantage to livelihood caused by the employees’ failure to receive 30% of their average wages during the suspension was excessive, rendering the measure unfair. b. Whether the Order to Suspend Work Constitutes an Unfair Labor Practice There was no basis to find that the employees were selected as subjects of the order to suspend work solely because they were union members, and the mere fact that the timing of the order to suspend work was close to the normalization of collective bargaining was insufficient to regard it as domination or interference with union activities. / [See More Related Decisions] - ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision Relating to “Non‑Formation of Employment Offer (Absence of Offer Letter)”’ – Date of decision: – Case outcome: First‑instance decision upheld - ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision Relating to “Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)”’ - ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision Relating to “Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)”’ [Tags] Unfair dismissal, order to suspend work (non‑payment of 30% of average wages), 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 Relating to “Extinction of Interest in Remedy (Reinstatement to Original Position and Completion of Wage Payment)”’” in a new window. ※ The list of decisions relating to orders to suspend work (non‑payment of 30% of average wages) can be viewed together at “List of Decisions Relating to Orders to Suspend Work (Non‑Payment of 30% of Average Wages).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article