Can an Accused Supervisor Continue Managing the Complainant? It’s Not a Binary Choice Between "Suspension" and "Business as Usual"—Companies Must Manage These Three Risks

"After an employee files a workplace bullying complaint against a supervisor, can that supervisor continue to evaluate them, assign shifts, and delegate work?"

Following the implementation of the new Workplace Bullying Prevention regulations on July 1, 2026, this is easily one of the most frequently mishandled questions facing organizations.

Some companies assume: "Since the investigation findings aren't out yet, the supervisor manages as usual." The other extreme is: "Since they've been reported, strip away all their managerial authority immediately."

Both approaches are problematic.

Being named in a complaint does not equate to substantiated bullying, nor does it automatically strip a supervisor of their management authority. However, once an employer becomes aware of suspected workplace bullying, they bear an employer duty of protection to take immediate, effective, and appropriate measures. Therefore, the core legal question is not whether the supervisor can manage, but rather: during the investigation, which management activities may continue, and which powers must be isolated, adjusted, or subjected to heightened oversight?

Ministry of Labor guidelines explicitly state that upon receiving a complaint, employers should consider the complainant's wishes and adopt appropriate isolation measures—such as adjusting work duties, seating arrangements, work locations, or work hours, or even transitioning to remote work—to prevent secondary harm to the complainant.

For labor law compliance training, board member continuing education credits, external committee members for workplace harassment/bullying, and litigation mediation representation, please contact Yesin Law Firm (Tel: +886-2-25156822; Website: https://www.yesinlaw.com).

1. Do not automatically suspend authority upon receiving a complaint; conduct a "Management Authority Risk Assessment" first.

Filing a workplace bullying complaint represents the initiation of a procedure, not a confirmed finding.

Based on procedural justice, an organization cannot treat the accused supervisor as a guilty perpetrator before investigation, nor apply substantive disciplinary penalties prematurely.

Conversely, if the complaint alleges that the supervisor uses evaluations, scheduling, task assignments, promotions, leave approvals, or information access to bully the employee, allowing those powers to remain completely unchecked during the investigation creates a very real risk of secondary harm.

Example: An employee reports: "My supervisor gives me negative ratings because I refused his personal requests." If the company allows that same supervisor to unilaterally decide the employee's annual performance review while the complaint is under investigation, it generates deep insecurity: "The person I reported is determining my career future."

Upon receiving a case, HR should immediately inventory: What duty authorities does the accused hold over the complainant? Which of those powers directly overlap with the complaint allegations? If exercised independently, which powers create risks of repeated harm, evidence tampering, or retaliation? This constitutes a true management risk assessment.

2. Supervisors may maintain essential management, but high-risk authorities must be isolated, co-decided, or documented.

Bullying prevention rules are not meant to paralyze company operations.

If an accused supervisor remains responsible for departmental operations, routine task delegation, progress tracking, client service, and necessary directions generally do not need to cease simply because a complaint was filed.

What requires adjustment are management authorities that significantly impact key employment rights or heavily overlap with complaint allegations—such as performance reviews, bonuses, promotions, transfers, shift scheduling, leave approval, PIPs, discipline, and termination. These can be temporarily shifted to higher-level supervisors, deputies, HR, or co-decided with parallel managers to prevent sole exercise by the accused.

Interaction methods should also be adjusted:

• If public humiliation is alleged, alter meeting formats.

  
  

• If one-on-one conflicts are involved, add a neutral third party.

  
  

• If scheduling or evaluations are disputed, implement dual-level reviews.

  
  

• If direct contact risks secondary harm, evaluate isolation measures, location changes, or duty adjustments.

  
  

Crucial Warning on Adverse Treatment: Isolation should not mean always moving the complainant. If filing a complaint results in an employee being removed from key projects, stripped of clients, given reduced hours, or placed in dead-end roles, the company risks committing adverse treatment (retaliation), even if claiming "it's for your protection."

The best interim measures avoid labeling either party, seeking the least intrusive, lowest-risk arrangement that balances employee wishes, operational needs, and the rights of both parties.

3. The greatest risk is not ongoing management, but a sudden, drastic shift in management dynamics post-complaint.

In practice, labor disputes escalate most frequently due to actions taken after a complaint is filed.

• An employee received normal ratings before filing, but gets the lowest rating the month after.

  
  

• An employee actively attended key meetings before filing, but is entirely excluded afterward.

  
  

• A supervisor assigned tasks daily before filing, but cuts off communication completely, leaving the employee with zero work.

  
  

While individual actions may not be illegal on their face, their timeline creates a highly sensitive case for retaliation against complainants.

Companies must monitor not only "what happened before," but also "whether management behavior changed abnormally after."

HR should establish a tracking mechanism over a defined period to review evaluations, task assignments, scheduling, bonuses, meeting inclusions, transfers, and discipline. If adverse decisions are genuinely required, preserve objective justifications and comparative data to prove they stem from operational or performance factors, not retaliation.

Avoid the opposite extreme: prohibiting the supervisor from speaking to or directing the employee at all, which signals to managers "I cannot manage if someone complains," leading to management paralysis. Mature corporate governance doesn't eliminate management authority; it subjects high-risk authority to proper oversight.

Advice from Attorney Chen Ye-xin

Can an accused supervisor continue managing the complainant?

The answer is not a simple "yes" or "no."

Being named in a complaint does not equal guilt, so pre-judging is prohibited; however, once aware of a suspected incident, an employer cannot allow high-risk power dynamics that cause secondary harm to operate unchecked.

Keep three principles in mind:

• Routine management may continue, but high-risk authority must be controlled.

  
  

• Avoid punishing the accused prematurely; focus on preventing secondary harm.

  
  

• Track abnormal post-complaint management changes, not just past events.

  
  

A truly professional workplace bullying investigation is never finished simply by physically separating the parties. Companies must evaluate management authority, contact methods, complainant wishes, secondary harm risks, and operational needs on a case-by-case basis—adopting interim measures like co-decision authority, third-party presence, or duty/workspace adjustments while keeping thorough records.

Ultimately, what labor inspectors and courts examine is not only whether bullying occurred, but whether the employer took immediate, effective, and proportionate protective measures upon learning of the incident.

If your company receives a complaint tomorrow alleging that a manager uses performance reviews and scheduling to bully a subordinate, and annual reviews are due at the end of the month, will you let the accused manager unilaterally decide the score—or does your organization have a framework ready to prevent secondary harm and retaliation without pre-judging guilt?