Corporate trends / Performance record
‘Automatic Dismissal (Home-Visit Nursing Record Falsification)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision (Unfair Dismissal 167)
- Date2026/02/01 04:08
- Read 235
This case concerns an unfair dismissal decision in which the employee partially prevailed on the issue of “automatic dismissal (home-visit nursing record falsification).”
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employee partially prevailed in a dispute over “automatic dismissal (home-visit nursing record falsification).”
Decision body: Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025UnfairDismissal9017 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
Decision date: 2025.12.18 · Case result: Partially upheld
Key issue summary:
A. Whether the grounds for dismissal fall under the grounds for automatic dismissal
The employee’s arbitrary adjustment of the number of home-visit nursing sessions, forging users’ signatures on service provision record sheets, and violation of the prohibition on overlapping benefit provision for the same time period all fall under both Article 55(2) (automatic dismissal) and Article 54(3)5 (disciplinary provisions) of the internal operating regulations.
1. Legal Implications
This article examines how the Labor Relations Commission ruled in an unfair dismissal case where an automatic dismissal was imposed on the grounds of falsifying home-visit nursing records, and what implications can be drawn from that decision in light of Labor Law Firm Law&’s practical experience.
In unfair dismissal disputes, automatic dismissal and dismissal ex officio may differ in form and name, but in substance they constitute “dismissal” and are therefore subject to strict legal scrutiny.
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, while performing home-visit nursing duties, the employee arbitrarily adjusted the number of visits, forged users’ signatures on service provision record sheets, and violated the rule prohibiting overlapping benefit provision for the same time period. On these grounds, the employee was subjected to automatic dismissal.
The employer, relying on the existence of grounds for automatic dismissal under its internal operating regulations, immediately terminated the employment relationship. The employee claimed that this constituted unfair dismissal and filed an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission, requesting monetary compensation in lieu of reinstatement.
Ⅱ. Issues
The issue in this case is whether, “even where the employee’s misconduct falls under the grounds for automatic dismissal under the operating regulations, the employer may proceed directly to automatic dismissal without going through disciplinary procedures, and, if such procedural defects exist, whether the dismissal can be deemed unfair.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The decision panel found that the employee’s arbitrary adjustment of the number of home-visit nursing sessions, forging signatures on record sheets, and violation of the prohibition on overlapping benefit provision for the same time period constituted both grounds for automatic dismissal and grounds for discipline under the operating regulations. It further noted that the wording of “poor work attitude and performance” (grounds for automatic dismissal) and “violation or neglect of duties or failure to comply with lawful work instructions” (grounds for discipline) in the operating regulations can be regarded as substantively identical, and that provisions on disciplinary procedures exist to guarantee an opportunity for defense and explanation to employees, who are in a weaker procedural position.
In light of this, the panel held that the same procedures as for disciplinary action should have been applied to the automatic dismissal in this case. However, the employer proceeded only with the automatic dismissal procedure under the personnel regulations and did not provide the employee with a summons to appear or an opportunity to explain. This was deemed a serious procedural defect.
The dismissal in this case was therefore held to be unfair due to procedural defects.
Furthermore, taking into account that the employee explicitly requested monetary compensation instead of reinstatement, the Labor Relations Commission found it appropriate to grant the application for a monetary compensation order, using as the basis the amount of wages the employee would have received had they continued to work normally from the date of dismissal to the date of the decision.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, regardless of whether their conduct falls under the grounds for automatic dismissal under the regulations, it is essential to check whether the proper procedures—such as referral to a disciplinary committee, provision of an opportunity to explain, and written notice—were actually followed in the dismissal process.
When filing an application for remedy for unfair dismissal, if reinstatement is practically difficult or not desired, the employee may opt for a monetary compensation order from the Labor Relations Commission. In that case, it is important to prepare and submit sufficient documentation on the scope and basis of compensation (wage statements, employment contract, etc.).
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company Perspective)
From the employer’s side, where both automatic dismissal/dismissal ex officio provisions and disciplinary provisions exist side by side, it is necessary to carefully examine whether the wording and actual scope of application of the two sets of provisions substantially overlap.
In particular, where the grounds for automatic dismissal are identical or very similar to the grounds for discipline, there is a high risk that a finding of unfair dismissal will be made due to procedural defects if disciplinary procedures (opportunity to appear and explain, deliberation procedures, etc.) are not followed, even if the employer uses the form of “automatic dismissal.” Accordingly, it is essential to refine the regulations and comply with the procedures.
Finally, regardless of whether the employer uses the term automatic dismissal, redundancy dismissal, or any other label, any measure that terminates the employment relationship against the employee’s will may constitute “dismissal” under the Labor Standards Act. Employers must therefore always bear in mind that not only the substantive justification for dismissal but also procedural fairness must be satisfied.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Whether the grounds for dismissal fall under the grounds for automatic dismissal
The employee’s arbitrary adjustment of the number of home-visit nursing sessions, forging users’ signatures on service provision record sheets, and violation of the prohibition on overlapping benefit provision for the same time period all fall under both Article 55(2) (automatic dismissal) and Article 54(3)5 (disciplinary provisions) of the operating regulations.
B. Whether disciplinary procedures apply to automatic dismissal
The operating regulations provide “poor work attitude and performance” as grounds for automatic dismissal, and “where the employee violates or neglects job duties or fails to comply with lawful work instructions” as grounds for discipline. Whether disciplinary procedures must be applied to automatic dismissal depends on whether these two grounds concern the same type of conduct, and the Commission found that the two are identical in meaning as a matter of wording. Furthermore, considering that provisions on disciplinary procedures serve to prevent the employee’s procedural position from becoming unduly disadvantaged, disciplinary procedures cannot be omitted in imposing automatic dismissal in this case.
C. Whether disciplinary procedures or equivalent procedures were followed
The employer followed only the automatic dismissal procedure prescribed in the personnel regulations and did not provide the employee with a summons to appear or an opportunity to explain, resulting in a defect in the disciplinary procedures.
D. Whether to grant the application for a monetary compensation order
Since the employee wishes monetary compensation in lieu of reinstatement, the application for a monetary compensation order is to be granted, and it is appropriate to order payment of an amount equivalent to wages from the date of dismissal to the date of the decision.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Whether the grounds for dismissal fall under the grounds for automatic dismissal
The employee’s arbitrary adjustment of the number of home-visit nursing sessions, forging users’ signatures on service provision record sheets, and violation of the prohibition on overlapping benefit provision for the same time period all fall under both Article 55(2) (automatic dismissal) and Article 54(3)5 (disciplinary provisions) of the operating regulations.
B. Whether disciplinary procedures apply to automatic dismissal
The operating regulations provide “poor work attitude and performance” as grounds for automatic dismissal, and “where the employee violates or neglects job duties or fails to comply with lawful work instructions” as grounds for discipline. Whether disciplinary procedures must be applied to automatic dismissal depends on whether these two grounds concern the same type of conduct, and the Commission found that the two are identical in meaning as a matter of wording. Furthermore, considering that provisions on disciplinary procedures serve to prevent the employee’s procedural position from becoming unduly disadvantaged, disciplinary procedures cannot be omitted in imposing automatic dismissal in this case.
C. Whether disciplinary procedures or equivalent procedures were followed
The employer followed only the automatic dismissal procedure prescribed in the personnel regulations and did not provide the employee with a summons to appear or an opportunity to explain, resulting in a defect in the disciplinary procedures.
D. Whether to grant the application for a monetary compensation order
Since the employee wishes monetary compensation in lieu of reinstatement, the application for a monetary compensation order is to be granted, and it is appropriate to order payment of an amount equivalent to wages from the date of dismissal to the date of the decision. /
[Further Related Decisions]
- “‘Existence of Dismissal (Notification by Text Message from Outsourced Team Leader)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
- “‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
- “‘Dismissal (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Decision date: – Case number: Dismissed
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, automatic dismissal (home-visit nursing record falsification), disciplinary dismissal, violation of company policies/failure to comply with work instructions, 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 Labor Law Firm Law&’s “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series.
※ You can view the previous article, “‘Existence of Dismissal (Notification by Text Message from Outsourced Team Leader)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to automatic dismissal (home-visit nursing record falsification) can be viewed together in the “Automatic Dismissal (Home-Visit Nursing Record Falsification) Related Decisions List.”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employee partially prevailed in a dispute over “automatic dismissal (home-visit nursing record falsification).”
Decision body: Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025UnfairDismissal9017 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
Decision date: 2025.12.18 · Case result: Partially upheld
Key issue summary:
A. Whether the grounds for dismissal fall under the grounds for automatic dismissal
The employee’s arbitrary adjustment of the number of home-visit nursing sessions, forging users’ signatures on service provision record sheets, and violation of the prohibition on overlapping benefit provision for the same time period all fall under both Article 55(2) (automatic dismissal) and Article 54(3)5 (disciplinary provisions) of the internal operating regulations.
1. Legal Implications
This article examines how the Labor Relations Commission ruled in an unfair dismissal case where an automatic dismissal was imposed on the grounds of falsifying home-visit nursing records, and what implications can be drawn from that decision in light of Labor Law Firm Law&’s practical experience.
In unfair dismissal disputes, automatic dismissal and dismissal ex officio may differ in form and name, but in substance they constitute “dismissal” and are therefore subject to strict legal scrutiny.
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, while performing home-visit nursing duties, the employee arbitrarily adjusted the number of visits, forged users’ signatures on service provision record sheets, and violated the rule prohibiting overlapping benefit provision for the same time period. On these grounds, the employee was subjected to automatic dismissal.
The employer, relying on the existence of grounds for automatic dismissal under its internal operating regulations, immediately terminated the employment relationship. The employee claimed that this constituted unfair dismissal and filed an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission, requesting monetary compensation in lieu of reinstatement.
Ⅱ. Issues
The issue in this case is whether, “even where the employee’s misconduct falls under the grounds for automatic dismissal under the operating regulations, the employer may proceed directly to automatic dismissal without going through disciplinary procedures, and, if such procedural defects exist, whether the dismissal can be deemed unfair.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The decision panel found that the employee’s arbitrary adjustment of the number of home-visit nursing sessions, forging signatures on record sheets, and violation of the prohibition on overlapping benefit provision for the same time period constituted both grounds for automatic dismissal and grounds for discipline under the operating regulations. It further noted that the wording of “poor work attitude and performance” (grounds for automatic dismissal) and “violation or neglect of duties or failure to comply with lawful work instructions” (grounds for discipline) in the operating regulations can be regarded as substantively identical, and that provisions on disciplinary procedures exist to guarantee an opportunity for defense and explanation to employees, who are in a weaker procedural position.
In light of this, the panel held that the same procedures as for disciplinary action should have been applied to the automatic dismissal in this case. However, the employer proceeded only with the automatic dismissal procedure under the personnel regulations and did not provide the employee with a summons to appear or an opportunity to explain. This was deemed a serious procedural defect.
The dismissal in this case was therefore held to be unfair due to procedural defects.
Furthermore, taking into account that the employee explicitly requested monetary compensation instead of reinstatement, the Labor Relations Commission found it appropriate to grant the application for a monetary compensation order, using as the basis the amount of wages the employee would have received had they continued to work normally from the date of dismissal to the date of the decision.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, regardless of whether their conduct falls under the grounds for automatic dismissal under the regulations, it is essential to check whether the proper procedures—such as referral to a disciplinary committee, provision of an opportunity to explain, and written notice—were actually followed in the dismissal process.
When filing an application for remedy for unfair dismissal, if reinstatement is practically difficult or not desired, the employee may opt for a monetary compensation order from the Labor Relations Commission. In that case, it is important to prepare and submit sufficient documentation on the scope and basis of compensation (wage statements, employment contract, etc.).
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company Perspective)
From the employer’s side, where both automatic dismissal/dismissal ex officio provisions and disciplinary provisions exist side by side, it is necessary to carefully examine whether the wording and actual scope of application of the two sets of provisions substantially overlap.
In particular, where the grounds for automatic dismissal are identical or very similar to the grounds for discipline, there is a high risk that a finding of unfair dismissal will be made due to procedural defects if disciplinary procedures (opportunity to appear and explain, deliberation procedures, etc.) are not followed, even if the employer uses the form of “automatic dismissal.” Accordingly, it is essential to refine the regulations and comply with the procedures.
Finally, regardless of whether the employer uses the term automatic dismissal, redundancy dismissal, or any other label, any measure that terminates the employment relationship against the employee’s will may constitute “dismissal” under the Labor Standards Act. Employers must therefore always bear in mind that not only the substantive justification for dismissal but also procedural fairness must be satisfied.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Whether the grounds for dismissal fall under the grounds for automatic dismissal
The employee’s arbitrary adjustment of the number of home-visit nursing sessions, forging users’ signatures on service provision record sheets, and violation of the prohibition on overlapping benefit provision for the same time period all fall under both Article 55(2) (automatic dismissal) and Article 54(3)5 (disciplinary provisions) of the operating regulations.
B. Whether disciplinary procedures apply to automatic dismissal
The operating regulations provide “poor work attitude and performance” as grounds for automatic dismissal, and “where the employee violates or neglects job duties or fails to comply with lawful work instructions” as grounds for discipline. Whether disciplinary procedures must be applied to automatic dismissal depends on whether these two grounds concern the same type of conduct, and the Commission found that the two are identical in meaning as a matter of wording. Furthermore, considering that provisions on disciplinary procedures serve to prevent the employee’s procedural position from becoming unduly disadvantaged, disciplinary procedures cannot be omitted in imposing automatic dismissal in this case.
C. Whether disciplinary procedures or equivalent procedures were followed
The employer followed only the automatic dismissal procedure prescribed in the personnel regulations and did not provide the employee with a summons to appear or an opportunity to explain, resulting in a defect in the disciplinary procedures.
D. Whether to grant the application for a monetary compensation order
Since the employee wishes monetary compensation in lieu of reinstatement, the application for a monetary compensation order is to be granted, and it is appropriate to order payment of an amount equivalent to wages from the date of dismissal to the date of the decision.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Whether the grounds for dismissal fall under the grounds for automatic dismissal
The employee’s arbitrary adjustment of the number of home-visit nursing sessions, forging users’ signatures on service provision record sheets, and violation of the prohibition on overlapping benefit provision for the same time period all fall under both Article 55(2) (automatic dismissal) and Article 54(3)5 (disciplinary provisions) of the operating regulations.
B. Whether disciplinary procedures apply to automatic dismissal
The operating regulations provide “poor work attitude and performance” as grounds for automatic dismissal, and “where the employee violates or neglects job duties or fails to comply with lawful work instructions” as grounds for discipline. Whether disciplinary procedures must be applied to automatic dismissal depends on whether these two grounds concern the same type of conduct, and the Commission found that the two are identical in meaning as a matter of wording. Furthermore, considering that provisions on disciplinary procedures serve to prevent the employee’s procedural position from becoming unduly disadvantaged, disciplinary procedures cannot be omitted in imposing automatic dismissal in this case.
C. Whether disciplinary procedures or equivalent procedures were followed
The employer followed only the automatic dismissal procedure prescribed in the personnel regulations and did not provide the employee with a summons to appear or an opportunity to explain, resulting in a defect in the disciplinary procedures.
D. Whether to grant the application for a monetary compensation order
Since the employee wishes monetary compensation in lieu of reinstatement, the application for a monetary compensation order is to be granted, and it is appropriate to order payment of an amount equivalent to wages from the date of dismissal to the date of the decision. /
[Further Related Decisions]
- “‘Existence of Dismissal (Notification by Text Message from Outsourced Team Leader)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
- “‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
- “‘Dismissal (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Decision date: – Case number: Dismissed
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, automatic dismissal (home-visit nursing record falsification), disciplinary dismissal, violation of company policies/failure to comply with work instructions, 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 Labor Law Firm Law&’s “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series.
※ You can view the previous article, “‘Existence of Dismissal (Notification by Text Message from Outsourced Team Leader)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to automatic dismissal (home-visit nursing record falsification) can be viewed together in the “Automatic Dismissal (Home-Visit Nursing Record Falsification) Related Decisions List.”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
