Corporate trends / Performance record
‘Excessive Disciplinary Severity (Arbitrary Discount Purchases at a Mart)’ Unfair Dismissal Case (Unfair Dismissal 240)
- Date2026/02/27 04:08
- Read 224
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the initial ruling was upheld on the issue of “excessive disciplinary severity (arbitrary discount purchases at a mart).”
Decision Committee: Central Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae1473 ○ ○ ○ Application for Re‑examination for Remedy of Unfair Dismissal
2026.01.21 · Result: Initial decision upheld
Summary of key issues:
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
The employee argued that the “arbitrary discount” conduct was not specifically proven and therefore could not constitute grounds for discipline. However, ① 30.4% of the 68 arbitrary discount purchase cases were made within 10 minutes after the discount labels were issued; ② although discount labels are generally issued after 14:00 or in the evening, the employee appears to have purchased the products immediately after the labels were issued for his/her own purchase, not for sales purposes; ③ 10...
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this unfair dismissal case, an employee working at a large discount mart was dismissed for disciplinary reasons after purchasing products at his/her workplace using an “arbitrary discount” method. The employee applied to the Labor Relations Commission for relief. The initial Labor Relations Commission found the dismissal to be unfair, and although the employer sought re‑examination, the Central Labor Relations Commission upheld the initial decision.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is:
“Even where an employee’s arbitrary discount and self‑purchase conduct constitutes grounds for discipline, does proceeding directly to dismissal—considering the amount of property damage and past disciplinary precedents—amount to an abuse of discretion in determining the level of discipline?”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case found that grounds for discipline (arbitrary discount purchases) did exist, in light of the following: approximately 30.4% of the 68 arbitrary discount purchases were made within 10 minutes after the discount labels were issued, and 58.7% within 30 minutes; discount labels are normally issued at specific times of day, yet the employee immediately made purchases for his/her own use; and there were instances where the number of labels issued during a given time period and the number of items purchased by the employee matched 100%.
At the same time, the panel held that dismissal was excessively severe in light of social norms, considering that the amount of property damage was minor; that although the disciplinary measures were structured in stages from reprimand to dismissal, the employer immediately chose dismissal, which does not accord with the “principle of progressive application of discipline”; that in past similar misconduct cases, relatively light measures such as reprimand or pay reduction had been imposed; and that it was difficult to conclude that all 68 instances were individually and clearly proven.
The panel also acknowledged a procedural defect in that the notice of convening the Personnel Committee was not served in advance, but found that this defect was cured because the employee actually attended the Personnel Committee and explained the disciplinary allegations.
Ultimately, the panel held that although the grounds for discipline existed, the level of discipline (dismissal) was excessively severe, and therefore the dismissal constituted unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s standpoint, it should be borne in mind that conduct related to company property—such as arbitrary discounts, self‑purchases, and use of in‑house goods—can fully constitute grounds for discipline if repeated, even when the amounts involved are small. However, the legitimacy of disciplinary dismissal is determined comprehensively based on the nature and frequency of the misconduct, the amount of damage, and past disciplinary precedents, and on whether, in light of social norms, the employment relationship can no longer be maintained.
Accordingly, when filing for relief with the Labor Relations Commission, it is important to systematically allege and prove matters such as the scale of the damage, the level of discipline in prior and similar cases, and your own remorse and efforts to prevent recurrence.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, it must be recognized that even if grounds for discipline are established, proceeding directly to dismissal carries a high risk of being found an abuse of disciplinary discretion and thus unfair dismissal. In particular, as Labor Law Firm Law& frequently points out, it is necessary to establish a structure whereby dismissal is chosen only as a last resort, after comprehensively considering the amount of property damage, the level of discipline in similar past cases, and the stepwise structure of sanctions under the disciplinary rules, and after examining the possibility of “mitigated discipline” such as reprimand, pay reduction, or suspension.
In addition, disciplinary procedures such as notice of the Personnel Committee and the opportunity to present explanations should be clearly set out in writing and actually observed. Where unavoidable procedural defects occur, the employer should still ensure that the employee’s right to defense is sufficiently guaranteed so that “cure of procedural defects” can later be recognized.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
The employee argued that the “arbitrary discount” conduct was not specifically proven and therefore could not constitute grounds for discipline. However, in light of the following: ① 30.4% of the 68 arbitrary discount purchase cases were made within 10 minutes after the discount labels were issued; ② although discount labels are generally issued after 14:00 or in the evening, the employee appears to have purchased the products immediately after the labels were issued for his/her own purchase, not for sales purposes; ③ there were 28 purchases within 10 minutes (30.4%) and 54 purchases within 30 minutes (58.7%), meaning there was virtually no time gap between the issuance of the discount labels and the employee’s purchases; and ④ there were cases where the number of discount labels issued during the same time period and the number of items purchased by the employee matched 100%; it is found that there were grounds for discipline in the form of “arbitrary discounts” on the part of the employee.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
Considering that: ① the amount of property damage was confirmed to be small; ② although the types of disciplinary measures are categorized from reprimand to dismissal, the employer immediately resolved to impose dismissal, which does not accord with the principle of progressive application of discipline; ③ in past similar misconduct cases, measures such as reprimand and pay reduction were imposed, so the level of discipline need not be limited to dismissal; and ④ it is difficult to conclude that all 68 instances of arbitrary discount conduct were individually proven; the level of discipline in the form of dismissal is deemed excessive.
C. Legality of the disciplinary procedure
Although a procedural defect is acknowledged in that the notice of convening the Personnel Committee was not served, this defect is deemed cured because the employee attended the Personnel Committee and sufficiently explained the disciplinary allegations.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
The employee argued that the “arbitrary discount” conduct was not specifically proven and therefore could not constitute grounds for discipline. However, in light of the following: ① 30.4% of the 68 arbitrary discount purchase cases were made within 10 minutes after the discount labels were issued; ② although discount labels are generally issued after 14:00 or in the evening, the employee appears to have purchased the products immediately after the labels were issued for his/her own purchase, not for sales purposes; ③ there were 28 purchases within 10 minutes (30.4%) and 54 purchases within 30 minutes (58.7%), meaning there was virtually no time gap between the issuance of the discount labels and the employee’s purchases; and ④ there were cases where the number of discount labels issued during the same time period and the number of items purchased by the employee matched 100%; it is found that there were grounds for discipline in the form of “arbitrary discounts” on the part of the employee.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
Considering that: ① the amount of property damage was confirmed to be small; ② although the types of disciplinary measures are categorized from reprimand to dismissal, the employer immediately resolved to impose dismissal, which does not accord with the principle of progressive application of discipline; ③ in past similar misconduct cases, measures such as reprimand and pay reduction were imposed, so the level of discipline need not be limited to dismissal; and ④ it is difficult to conclude that all 68 instances of arbitrary discount conduct were individually proven; the level of discipline in the form of dismissal is deemed excessive.
C. Legality of the disciplinary procedure
Although a procedural defect is acknowledged in that the notice of convening the Personnel Committee was not served, this defect is deemed cured because the employee attended the Personnel Committee and sufficiently explained the disciplinary allegations.
/
[See More Related Decisions]
- ‘Excessive Disciplinary Severity (Unauthorized Removal of Urea Solution)’ Unfair Dismissal Case
- ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’ Unfair Dismissal Case
- ‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ Unfair Dismissal Case
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, excessive disciplinary severity (arbitrary discount purchases at a mart), disciplinary dismissal, violation of company policy · non‑compliance 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, “‘Excessive Disciplinary Severity (Unauthorized Removal of Urea Solution)’ Unfair Dismissal Case,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to excessive disciplinary severity (arbitrary discount purchases at a mart) can be found in the “Excessive Disciplinary Severity (Arbitrary Discount Purchases at a Mart) Decisions List.”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the initial ruling was upheld on the issue of “excessive disciplinary severity (arbitrary discount purchases at a mart).”
Decision Committee: Central Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae1473 ○ ○ ○ Application for Re‑examination for Remedy of Unfair Dismissal
2026.01.21 · Result: Initial decision upheld
Summary of key issues:
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
The employee argued that the “arbitrary discount” conduct was not specifically proven and therefore could not constitute grounds for discipline. However, ① 30.4% of the 68 arbitrary discount purchase cases were made within 10 minutes after the discount labels were issued; ② although discount labels are generally issued after 14:00 or in the evening, the employee appears to have purchased the products immediately after the labels were issued for his/her own purchase, not for sales purposes; ③ 10...
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this unfair dismissal case, an employee working at a large discount mart was dismissed for disciplinary reasons after purchasing products at his/her workplace using an “arbitrary discount” method. The employee applied to the Labor Relations Commission for relief. The initial Labor Relations Commission found the dismissal to be unfair, and although the employer sought re‑examination, the Central Labor Relations Commission upheld the initial decision.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is:
“Even where an employee’s arbitrary discount and self‑purchase conduct constitutes grounds for discipline, does proceeding directly to dismissal—considering the amount of property damage and past disciplinary precedents—amount to an abuse of discretion in determining the level of discipline?”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case found that grounds for discipline (arbitrary discount purchases) did exist, in light of the following: approximately 30.4% of the 68 arbitrary discount purchases were made within 10 minutes after the discount labels were issued, and 58.7% within 30 minutes; discount labels are normally issued at specific times of day, yet the employee immediately made purchases for his/her own use; and there were instances where the number of labels issued during a given time period and the number of items purchased by the employee matched 100%.
At the same time, the panel held that dismissal was excessively severe in light of social norms, considering that the amount of property damage was minor; that although the disciplinary measures were structured in stages from reprimand to dismissal, the employer immediately chose dismissal, which does not accord with the “principle of progressive application of discipline”; that in past similar misconduct cases, relatively light measures such as reprimand or pay reduction had been imposed; and that it was difficult to conclude that all 68 instances were individually and clearly proven.
The panel also acknowledged a procedural defect in that the notice of convening the Personnel Committee was not served in advance, but found that this defect was cured because the employee actually attended the Personnel Committee and explained the disciplinary allegations.
Ultimately, the panel held that although the grounds for discipline existed, the level of discipline (dismissal) was excessively severe, and therefore the dismissal constituted unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s standpoint, it should be borne in mind that conduct related to company property—such as arbitrary discounts, self‑purchases, and use of in‑house goods—can fully constitute grounds for discipline if repeated, even when the amounts involved are small. However, the legitimacy of disciplinary dismissal is determined comprehensively based on the nature and frequency of the misconduct, the amount of damage, and past disciplinary precedents, and on whether, in light of social norms, the employment relationship can no longer be maintained.
Accordingly, when filing for relief with the Labor Relations Commission, it is important to systematically allege and prove matters such as the scale of the damage, the level of discipline in prior and similar cases, and your own remorse and efforts to prevent recurrence.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, it must be recognized that even if grounds for discipline are established, proceeding directly to dismissal carries a high risk of being found an abuse of disciplinary discretion and thus unfair dismissal. In particular, as Labor Law Firm Law& frequently points out, it is necessary to establish a structure whereby dismissal is chosen only as a last resort, after comprehensively considering the amount of property damage, the level of discipline in similar past cases, and the stepwise structure of sanctions under the disciplinary rules, and after examining the possibility of “mitigated discipline” such as reprimand, pay reduction, or suspension.
In addition, disciplinary procedures such as notice of the Personnel Committee and the opportunity to present explanations should be clearly set out in writing and actually observed. Where unavoidable procedural defects occur, the employer should still ensure that the employee’s right to defense is sufficiently guaranteed so that “cure of procedural defects” can later be recognized.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
The employee argued that the “arbitrary discount” conduct was not specifically proven and therefore could not constitute grounds for discipline. However, in light of the following: ① 30.4% of the 68 arbitrary discount purchase cases were made within 10 minutes after the discount labels were issued; ② although discount labels are generally issued after 14:00 or in the evening, the employee appears to have purchased the products immediately after the labels were issued for his/her own purchase, not for sales purposes; ③ there were 28 purchases within 10 minutes (30.4%) and 54 purchases within 30 minutes (58.7%), meaning there was virtually no time gap between the issuance of the discount labels and the employee’s purchases; and ④ there were cases where the number of discount labels issued during the same time period and the number of items purchased by the employee matched 100%; it is found that there were grounds for discipline in the form of “arbitrary discounts” on the part of the employee.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
Considering that: ① the amount of property damage was confirmed to be small; ② although the types of disciplinary measures are categorized from reprimand to dismissal, the employer immediately resolved to impose dismissal, which does not accord with the principle of progressive application of discipline; ③ in past similar misconduct cases, measures such as reprimand and pay reduction were imposed, so the level of discipline need not be limited to dismissal; and ④ it is difficult to conclude that all 68 instances of arbitrary discount conduct were individually proven; the level of discipline in the form of dismissal is deemed excessive.
C. Legality of the disciplinary procedure
Although a procedural defect is acknowledged in that the notice of convening the Personnel Committee was not served, this defect is deemed cured because the employee attended the Personnel Committee and sufficiently explained the disciplinary allegations.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
The employee argued that the “arbitrary discount” conduct was not specifically proven and therefore could not constitute grounds for discipline. However, in light of the following: ① 30.4% of the 68 arbitrary discount purchase cases were made within 10 minutes after the discount labels were issued; ② although discount labels are generally issued after 14:00 or in the evening, the employee appears to have purchased the products immediately after the labels were issued for his/her own purchase, not for sales purposes; ③ there were 28 purchases within 10 minutes (30.4%) and 54 purchases within 30 minutes (58.7%), meaning there was virtually no time gap between the issuance of the discount labels and the employee’s purchases; and ④ there were cases where the number of discount labels issued during the same time period and the number of items purchased by the employee matched 100%; it is found that there were grounds for discipline in the form of “arbitrary discounts” on the part of the employee.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
Considering that: ① the amount of property damage was confirmed to be small; ② although the types of disciplinary measures are categorized from reprimand to dismissal, the employer immediately resolved to impose dismissal, which does not accord with the principle of progressive application of discipline; ③ in past similar misconduct cases, measures such as reprimand and pay reduction were imposed, so the level of discipline need not be limited to dismissal; and ④ it is difficult to conclude that all 68 instances of arbitrary discount conduct were individually proven; the level of discipline in the form of dismissal is deemed excessive.
C. Legality of the disciplinary procedure
Although a procedural defect is acknowledged in that the notice of convening the Personnel Committee was not served, this defect is deemed cured because the employee attended the Personnel Committee and sufficiently explained the disciplinary allegations.
/
[See More Related Decisions]
- ‘Excessive Disciplinary Severity (Unauthorized Removal of Urea Solution)’ Unfair Dismissal Case
- ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’ Unfair Dismissal Case
- ‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ Unfair Dismissal Case
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, excessive disciplinary severity (arbitrary discount purchases at a mart), disciplinary dismissal, violation of company policy · non‑compliance 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, “‘Excessive Disciplinary Severity (Unauthorized Removal of Urea Solution)’ Unfair Dismissal Case,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to excessive disciplinary severity (arbitrary discount purchases at a mart) can be found in the “Excessive Disciplinary Severity (Arbitrary Discount Purchases at a Mart) Decisions List.”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
