Corporate trends / Performance record
Case Precedent on Unfair Dismissal Relating to “Insufficient Proof of Grounds for Dismissal (Attendance and Poor Performance)” (Unfair Dismissal 99)
- Date2026/01/12 15:03
- Read 222
[Case Information]
- Case Name: Case precedent on unfair dismissal relating to “insufficient proof of grounds for dismissal (attendance and poor performance)”
- Case Number: Full acceptance
- Adjudicating Committee: Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025BuHae265 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2025.11.18
- Date of Decision:
- Summary of Outcome:
A. Legitimacy of the grounds for dismissal
The employer asserted that the employee was lawfully dismissed on the grounds of “frequent absences, poor performance and lack of responsibility, poor attendance, lack of communication, failure to improve work attitude, frequent complaints, etc.” However, the employer failed to properly prove each ground for dismissal, and…
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employer dismissed the employee citing frequent absences, poor performance, lack of responsibility, poor attendance, lack of communication, and frequent complaints. The employee filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission, claiming unfair dismissal.
The Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission comprehensively reviewed whether the employer had proven the alleged grounds for dismissal and whether the disciplinary procedures stipulated in the rules of employment had been observed, in order to determine whether the dismissal was unfair.
Ⅱ. Issues in Dispute
The issue in this case is:
“Where an employee is dismissed on the grounds of poor attendance, poor performance, etc., but the employer fails to prove the existence of the grounds for dismissal and does not follow the disciplinary procedures set out in the rules of employment (opportunity to explain, disciplinary review, etc.), can the dismissal still be considered justified?”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The adjudicating panel in this case found that, although the employer cited the employee’s frequent absences, poor performance, lack of responsibility, poor attendance, lack of communication, failure to improve work attitude, and frequent complaints as grounds for dismissal, the employer failed to properly substantiate each of these grounds with objective evidence.
The employer also failed to submit any specific circumstances or facts showing that the employee’s work performance fell short of the level or expectations of an ordinary employee. Furthermore, when dismissing the employee, the employer did not follow any of the disciplinary review procedures set out in the rules of employment and did not even provide a usual opportunity for explanation.
In light of the above, the panel held that the dismissal in this case could hardly be regarded as having justified grounds for dismissal, and that it also lacked legitimacy in terms of the level of discipline imposed and the disciplinary procedures followed. Accordingly, it was determined to be an unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s standpoint, it should be remembered that even if the employer vaguely alleges “poor performance” or “poor attendance,” the legitimacy of the dismissal may be denied if there are no specific facts and evidence.
In situations where dismissal or severe disciplinary action may be anticipated, it is advisable to keep records—wherever possible in writing or via messenger—of any criticisms, requests for improvement, and requests for explanation.
You should also carefully check whether the procedures stipulated in the rules of employment—such as notice of convening a disciplinary committee and the granting of an opportunity to explain—were actually carried out, and whether your right to defense was sufficiently guaranteed, before considering filing an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, it must be borne in mind that, under Article 23 of the Labor Standards Act, the burden of proof regarding just cause for dismissal lies entirely with the employer.
If you are planning personnel measures on the grounds of poor attendance or poor performance, you should systematically accumulate objective materials in advance, such as warnings, guidance, training records, performance evaluations, and interview records, and you should comply with the disciplinary procedures stipulated in the rules of employment and collective agreements (written notice, opportunity to appear and explain, disciplinary review), not merely in form but in substance.
Furthermore, unlike redundancy dismissals, disciplinary dismissal is the most severe sanction based on the employee’s fault. You should therefore carefully examine whether it has become difficult, according to social norms, to continue the employment relationship, and whether the intended purpose could be achieved through less severe sanctions such as pay reduction, reprimand, or suspension.
(ⓒ2025 copyright. Labor Attorney Youngseop Moon, Labor Law Firm Law&. Unauthorized reproduction and redistribution are prohibited.)
2. Matters Adjudicated
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Legitimacy of the Grounds for Dismissal
The employer asserted that the employee was lawfully dismissed on the grounds of “frequent absences, poor performance and lack of responsibility, poor attendance, lack of communication, failure to improve work attitude, frequent complaints, etc.” However, in light of the fact that the employer failed to properly prove each of the grounds for dismissal, and also failed to submit any circumstances or facts indicating that the employee’s work performance fell short of the level or expectations of an ordinary employee, it is difficult to recognize the legitimacy of the grounds for dismissal.
B. Appropriateness of the Level of Discipline
Since the legitimacy of the grounds for discipline is lacking, and no proper determination of the level of discipline was made, the disciplinary action is unfair.
C. Lawfulness of the Disciplinary Procedures
The employer dismissed (or imposed disciplinary dismissal on) the employee on the grounds set out in Article 48 (Termination of Employment) or Article 55 (Types of Disciplinary Action) of the rules of employment, without even granting the usual opportunity for explanation. Moreover, it has been confirmed that the employer did not comply at all with the disciplinary procedures under Article 56 (Disciplinary Review) of the rules of employment (written notice of appearance, granting of an opportunity to explain, etc.). Accordingly, the dismissal in this case is also procedurally unlawful and unfair.
3. Summary of Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Legitimacy of the Grounds for Dismissal
The employer asserted that the employee was lawfully dismissed on the grounds of “frequent absences, poor performance and lack of responsibility, poor attendance, lack of communication, failure to improve work attitude, frequent complaints, etc.” However, in light of the fact that the employer failed to properly prove each of the grounds for dismissal, and also failed to submit any circumstances or facts indicating that the employee’s work performance fell short of the level or expectations of an ordinary employee, it is difficult to recognize the legitimacy of the grounds for dismissal.
B. Appropriateness of the Level of Discipline
Since the legitimacy of the grounds for discipline is lacking, and no proper determination of the level of discipline was made, the disciplinary action is unfair.
C. Lawfulness of the Disciplinary Procedures
The employer dismissed (or imposed disciplinary dismissal on) the employee on the grounds set out in Article 48 (Termination of Employment) or Article 55 (Types of Disciplinary Action) of the rules of employment, without even granting the usual opportunity for explanation. Moreover, it has been confirmed that the employer did not comply at all with the disciplinary procedures under Article 56 (Disciplinary Review) of the rules of employment (written notice of appearance, granting of an opportunity to explain, etc.). Accordingly, the dismissal in this case is also procedurally unlawful and unfair. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Case Precedent on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Determination of Level of Discipline (Negligent Performance of Duties by Security Team Leader)’”
- “Case Precedent on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
- “Case Precedent on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’” – Date of Decision: – Case Number: First-instance decision upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, insufficient proof of grounds for dismissal (attendance and poor performance), disciplinary dismissal, unauthorized absence, performance evaluation and poor performance, 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 Precedents” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ The previous article, “Case Precedent on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Determination of Level of Discipline (Negligent Performance of Duties by Security Team Leader)’,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of case precedents relating to insufficient proof of grounds for dismissal (attendance and poor performance) can be viewed together under “List of Case Precedents Relating to Insufficient Proof of Grounds for Dismissal (Attendance and Poor Performance).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
- Case Name: Case precedent on unfair dismissal relating to “insufficient proof of grounds for dismissal (attendance and poor performance)”
- Case Number: Full acceptance
- Adjudicating Committee: Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025BuHae265 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2025.11.18
- Date of Decision:
- Summary of Outcome:
A. Legitimacy of the grounds for dismissal
The employer asserted that the employee was lawfully dismissed on the grounds of “frequent absences, poor performance and lack of responsibility, poor attendance, lack of communication, failure to improve work attitude, frequent complaints, etc.” However, the employer failed to properly prove each ground for dismissal, and…
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employer dismissed the employee citing frequent absences, poor performance, lack of responsibility, poor attendance, lack of communication, and frequent complaints. The employee filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission, claiming unfair dismissal.
The Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission comprehensively reviewed whether the employer had proven the alleged grounds for dismissal and whether the disciplinary procedures stipulated in the rules of employment had been observed, in order to determine whether the dismissal was unfair.
Ⅱ. Issues in Dispute
The issue in this case is:
“Where an employee is dismissed on the grounds of poor attendance, poor performance, etc., but the employer fails to prove the existence of the grounds for dismissal and does not follow the disciplinary procedures set out in the rules of employment (opportunity to explain, disciplinary review, etc.), can the dismissal still be considered justified?”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The adjudicating panel in this case found that, although the employer cited the employee’s frequent absences, poor performance, lack of responsibility, poor attendance, lack of communication, failure to improve work attitude, and frequent complaints as grounds for dismissal, the employer failed to properly substantiate each of these grounds with objective evidence.
The employer also failed to submit any specific circumstances or facts showing that the employee’s work performance fell short of the level or expectations of an ordinary employee. Furthermore, when dismissing the employee, the employer did not follow any of the disciplinary review procedures set out in the rules of employment and did not even provide a usual opportunity for explanation.
In light of the above, the panel held that the dismissal in this case could hardly be regarded as having justified grounds for dismissal, and that it also lacked legitimacy in terms of the level of discipline imposed and the disciplinary procedures followed. Accordingly, it was determined to be an unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s standpoint, it should be remembered that even if the employer vaguely alleges “poor performance” or “poor attendance,” the legitimacy of the dismissal may be denied if there are no specific facts and evidence.
In situations where dismissal or severe disciplinary action may be anticipated, it is advisable to keep records—wherever possible in writing or via messenger—of any criticisms, requests for improvement, and requests for explanation.
You should also carefully check whether the procedures stipulated in the rules of employment—such as notice of convening a disciplinary committee and the granting of an opportunity to explain—were actually carried out, and whether your right to defense was sufficiently guaranteed, before considering filing an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, it must be borne in mind that, under Article 23 of the Labor Standards Act, the burden of proof regarding just cause for dismissal lies entirely with the employer.
If you are planning personnel measures on the grounds of poor attendance or poor performance, you should systematically accumulate objective materials in advance, such as warnings, guidance, training records, performance evaluations, and interview records, and you should comply with the disciplinary procedures stipulated in the rules of employment and collective agreements (written notice, opportunity to appear and explain, disciplinary review), not merely in form but in substance.
Furthermore, unlike redundancy dismissals, disciplinary dismissal is the most severe sanction based on the employee’s fault. You should therefore carefully examine whether it has become difficult, according to social norms, to continue the employment relationship, and whether the intended purpose could be achieved through less severe sanctions such as pay reduction, reprimand, or suspension.
(ⓒ2025 copyright. Labor Attorney Youngseop Moon, Labor Law Firm Law&. Unauthorized reproduction and redistribution are prohibited.)
2. Matters Adjudicated
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Legitimacy of the Grounds for Dismissal
The employer asserted that the employee was lawfully dismissed on the grounds of “frequent absences, poor performance and lack of responsibility, poor attendance, lack of communication, failure to improve work attitude, frequent complaints, etc.” However, in light of the fact that the employer failed to properly prove each of the grounds for dismissal, and also failed to submit any circumstances or facts indicating that the employee’s work performance fell short of the level or expectations of an ordinary employee, it is difficult to recognize the legitimacy of the grounds for dismissal.
B. Appropriateness of the Level of Discipline
Since the legitimacy of the grounds for discipline is lacking, and no proper determination of the level of discipline was made, the disciplinary action is unfair.
C. Lawfulness of the Disciplinary Procedures
The employer dismissed (or imposed disciplinary dismissal on) the employee on the grounds set out in Article 48 (Termination of Employment) or Article 55 (Types of Disciplinary Action) of the rules of employment, without even granting the usual opportunity for explanation. Moreover, it has been confirmed that the employer did not comply at all with the disciplinary procedures under Article 56 (Disciplinary Review) of the rules of employment (written notice of appearance, granting of an opportunity to explain, etc.). Accordingly, the dismissal in this case is also procedurally unlawful and unfair.
3. Summary of Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Legitimacy of the Grounds for Dismissal
The employer asserted that the employee was lawfully dismissed on the grounds of “frequent absences, poor performance and lack of responsibility, poor attendance, lack of communication, failure to improve work attitude, frequent complaints, etc.” However, in light of the fact that the employer failed to properly prove each of the grounds for dismissal, and also failed to submit any circumstances or facts indicating that the employee’s work performance fell short of the level or expectations of an ordinary employee, it is difficult to recognize the legitimacy of the grounds for dismissal.
B. Appropriateness of the Level of Discipline
Since the legitimacy of the grounds for discipline is lacking, and no proper determination of the level of discipline was made, the disciplinary action is unfair.
C. Lawfulness of the Disciplinary Procedures
The employer dismissed (or imposed disciplinary dismissal on) the employee on the grounds set out in Article 48 (Termination of Employment) or Article 55 (Types of Disciplinary Action) of the rules of employment, without even granting the usual opportunity for explanation. Moreover, it has been confirmed that the employer did not comply at all with the disciplinary procedures under Article 56 (Disciplinary Review) of the rules of employment (written notice of appearance, granting of an opportunity to explain, etc.). Accordingly, the dismissal in this case is also procedurally unlawful and unfair. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Case Precedent on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Determination of Level of Discipline (Negligent Performance of Duties by Security Team Leader)’”
- “Case Precedent on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
- “Case Precedent on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’” – Date of Decision: – Case Number: First-instance decision upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, insufficient proof of grounds for dismissal (attendance and poor performance), disciplinary dismissal, unauthorized absence, performance evaluation and poor performance, 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 Precedents” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ The previous article, “Case Precedent on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Determination of Level of Discipline (Negligent Performance of Duties by Security Team Leader)’,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of case precedents relating to insufficient proof of grounds for dismissal (attendance and poor performance) can be viewed together under “List of Case Precedents Relating to Insufficient Proof of Grounds for Dismissal (Attendance and Poor Performance).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
