Hello, this is Attorney Choi Jong-ha from Law Firm Cheongchul.

If an employee is expected to continue in their current position or role in the future but anticipates work-related disabilities, the employer may take measures to prevent this by temporarily not assigning that employee to a position, often referred to as ‘suspension’. Typical cases include investigations into potential leakage of trade secrets by the employee, workplace harassment, sexual harassment, or embezzlement.

Before taking significant action, in cases where a suspension measure is taken to prevent additional harm, it is generally at the employer’s discretion to decide freely. However, the Supreme Court has stated, “Even if a temporary personnel order, such as a suspension, is justified at the time of the order, the purpose of the suspension, its actual function, the reasonableness of its maintenance, and specific circumstances such as economic disadvantages that the employee may suffer must all be taken into account, and the duration should be within a reasonable range. Therefore, if an employee who is suspended cannot provide work for a considerable period or if it is very inappropriate for them to provide work, but they remain in a temporary status for an unreasonably long time without special circumstances, it cannot be considered justified. Thus, any suspension after a point where it is unreasonably prolonged should be deemed invalid,” clearly stating that there are limits to this discretion.

Employers may think that employees have no reason to resist a suspension order wherein their obligation to provide work is exempted, given that their pay is not significantly cut. However, the effectiveness of a suspension order is frequently contested. If the suspension prolongs, it can adversely affect the company’s reputation, and in some cases, even if the investigation results are not disclosed, the employee’s misconduct may become an established fact.

Of course, this is even more true if there are actual disadvantages to the employee. During the suspension period, the direct disadvantage of a partial pay cut is evident, but internal policies might treat the suspension period similarly to a leave of absence, excluding that period from the length of service required for promotions, thus imposing indirect disadvantages, making the necessity to contest the effectiveness of the suspension significantly high. Even if the investigation results proven innocent during the suspension period, these disadvantages frequently persist unless separate processes are followed.

If there is a need to impose a suspension measure, or if you have received a suspension order from the company, it is necessary to conduct a careful review regarding its impact and effectiveness.