Corporate trends / Performance record
‘Excessive Disciplinary Severity (Farm Management · Quarantine Case)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision (Unfair Dismissal 248)
- Date2026/03/02 04:04
- Read 213
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the initial decision was upheld on the issue of “excessive disciplinary severity (farm management · quarantine case).”
Decision Committee: Central Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae1523 ○ ○ ○ Application for Re‑examination of Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.01.19 · Case Result: Initial Decision Upheld
Summary of Key Issues:
A. Existence of grounds for discipline: Of the 14 grounds for discipline, some relatively minor grounds—such as falsification of the attendance record, damage to a company vehicle, poor management of the dormitory, and watching movies during working hours (grounds for discipline Nos. 5, 8, 12, 14)—were acknowledged. However, for the remaining grounds—such as violation of quarantine rules, falsification of the breeding log, and property loss due to illegal conversion of farmland—there was no objective proof of the employee’s fault or of any actual property loss, and therefore these could not be regarded as misconduct…
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employer dismissed the employee for disciplinary reasons, citing 14 instances of alleged misconduct. The employee claimed that the dismissal was unfair and applied to the Labor Relations Commission for relief. The initial Labor Relations Commission found the dismissal to be unfair. The employer then sought re‑examination, but the Central Labor Relations Commission upheld the initial decision, ruling in favor of the employee.
This is a type of case frequently encountered by Labor Law Firm Law&, and it clearly illustrates that even where some misconduct is established, a dismissal may still constitute unfair dismissal if the level of discipline is excessively severe.
Ⅱ. Issues in Dispute
The issue in this case is:
“Where only some of multiple disciplinary grounds have been proven, is dismissal based on relatively minor acts of misconduct a socially acceptable and proportionate level of discipline?”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The decision panel in this case acknowledged some relatively minor grounds for discipline, such as falsification of the attendance record, damage to a company vehicle, poor management of the dormitory, and watching movies during working hours. However, it found that the more serious alleged misconduct—such as violation of quarantine rules, falsification of the breeding log, and property loss due to illegal conversion of farmland—was not objectively proven in terms of the employee’s fault or the occurrence of loss.
It further held that, in determining the appropriate level of discipline, the employee’s length of service and merits, as well as the principle of applying discipline in stages, must be considered together. In light of these factors, the panel concluded that dismissal was markedly unreasonable by social standards and constituted an abuse and overstepping of the employer’s discretionary disciplinary authority.
In addition, since there were no separate rules regarding the timing of the formation of the Personnel Committee, and there was no fact that the employer exercised voting rights as a member of the Personnel Committee, the panel found that the procedural defects in the disciplinary process alleged by the employee were not established.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s standpoint, it is important to carefully contest which of the grounds for discipline asserted by the employer are objectively proven, particularly with respect to the facts and evidence surrounding alleged property loss or serious misconduct.
Even where some misconduct is admitted, the employee should logically argue that, considering the nature and degree of the misconduct, length of service, merits, prior disciplinary record, and whether any damage has been remedied, a lesser disciplinary measure than dismissal is appropriate.
Because the Labor Relations Commission places emphasis on the proportionality of disciplinary severity and its reasonableness in light of social norms, it is necessary to persuasively demonstrate—based on concrete facts and established legal principles—that “dismissal is excessively severe relative to the minor grounds.”
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s side, when proceeding with disciplinary dismissal based on multiple grounds, it is necessary to check in advance whether the employee’s fault and the occurrence of damage can be objectively substantiated for each ground, and whether dismissal would still be necessary even if only those grounds were considered.
In determining the level of discipline, it is safer to consider the disciplinary standards in the rules of employment and HR regulations, consistency with past similar cases, and the principle of progressive discipline, and to examine whether the objectives cannot be achieved through less severe measures such as a warning, pay cut, or suspension.
Furthermore, when forming and convening the Personnel Committee and following the prescribed procedures, it is advisable to clearly document, in writing, the specific grounds for discipline, supporting evidence, and the deliberation and resolution process, in order to prepare for potential future disputes.
(ⓒ2026 copyright. Labor Attorney Moon Young‑seop, Labor Law Firm Law&.)
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
Of the 14 grounds for discipline, some relatively minor grounds—such as falsification of the attendance record, damage to a company vehicle, poor management of the dormitory, and watching movies during working hours (grounds for discipline Nos. 5, 8, 12, 14)—are acknowledged. However, the other grounds for discipline—such as violation of quarantine rules, falsification of the breeding log, and property loss due to illegal conversion of farmland—are difficult to recognize as misconduct, because the employee’s fault and the occurrence of property loss have not been objectively proven.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
Although some acts of misconduct are acknowledged, considering comprehensively the nature and degree of the acknowledged misconduct, the employee’s length of service and merits, and the principle of applying discipline in stages, the decision to dismiss is deemed to have clearly lost its reasonableness by social standards and to constitute a departure from and abuse of the employer’s discretionary authority.
C. Legality of the disciplinary procedure
The employee argued that there were procedural defects in the disciplinary process, such as the Personnel Committee being formed on the same day, thereby infringing the employee’s right to defense. However, because there are no rules regarding the timing of the formation of the Personnel Committee, and there is no fact that the employer exercised voting rights as a member of the Personnel Committee during the disciplinary process, it was determined that there were no procedural defects in the disciplinary process.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
Of the 14 grounds for discipline, some relatively minor grounds—such as falsification of the attendance record, damage to a company vehicle, poor management of the dormitory, and watching movies during working hours (grounds for discipline Nos. 5, 8, 12, 14)—are acknowledged. However, the other grounds for discipline—such as violation of quarantine rules, falsification of the breeding log, and property loss due to illegal conversion of farmland—are difficult to recognize as misconduct, because the employee’s fault and the occurrence of property loss have not been objectively proven.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
Although some acts of misconduct are acknowledged, considering comprehensively the nature and degree of the acknowledged misconduct, the employee’s length of service and merits, and the principle of applying discipline in stages, the decision to dismiss is deemed to have clearly lost its reasonableness by social standards and to constitute a departure from and abuse of the employer’s discretionary authority.
C. Legality of the disciplinary procedure
The employee argued that there were procedural defects in the disciplinary process, such as the Personnel Committee being formed on the same day, thereby infringing the employee’s right to defense. However, because there are no rules regarding the timing of the formation of the Personnel Committee, and there is no fact that the employer exercised voting rights as a member of the Personnel Committee during the disciplinary process, it was determined that there were no procedural defects in the disciplinary process. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision
- ‘Non‑Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision – Decision Date: – Case Result: Initial Decision Upheld
- ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, excessive disciplinary severity (farm management · quarantine case), 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, “‘Defect in Written Notice (4 Major Social Insurance Loss Report)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to excessive disciplinary severity (farm management · quarantine case) can be viewed together at “List of Decisions Related to Excessive Disciplinary Severity (Farm Management · Quarantine Case).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the initial decision was upheld on the issue of “excessive disciplinary severity (farm management · quarantine case).”
Decision Committee: Central Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae1523 ○ ○ ○ Application for Re‑examination of Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.01.19 · Case Result: Initial Decision Upheld
Summary of Key Issues:
A. Existence of grounds for discipline: Of the 14 grounds for discipline, some relatively minor grounds—such as falsification of the attendance record, damage to a company vehicle, poor management of the dormitory, and watching movies during working hours (grounds for discipline Nos. 5, 8, 12, 14)—were acknowledged. However, for the remaining grounds—such as violation of quarantine rules, falsification of the breeding log, and property loss due to illegal conversion of farmland—there was no objective proof of the employee’s fault or of any actual property loss, and therefore these could not be regarded as misconduct…
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employer dismissed the employee for disciplinary reasons, citing 14 instances of alleged misconduct. The employee claimed that the dismissal was unfair and applied to the Labor Relations Commission for relief. The initial Labor Relations Commission found the dismissal to be unfair. The employer then sought re‑examination, but the Central Labor Relations Commission upheld the initial decision, ruling in favor of the employee.
This is a type of case frequently encountered by Labor Law Firm Law&, and it clearly illustrates that even where some misconduct is established, a dismissal may still constitute unfair dismissal if the level of discipline is excessively severe.
Ⅱ. Issues in Dispute
The issue in this case is:
“Where only some of multiple disciplinary grounds have been proven, is dismissal based on relatively minor acts of misconduct a socially acceptable and proportionate level of discipline?”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The decision panel in this case acknowledged some relatively minor grounds for discipline, such as falsification of the attendance record, damage to a company vehicle, poor management of the dormitory, and watching movies during working hours. However, it found that the more serious alleged misconduct—such as violation of quarantine rules, falsification of the breeding log, and property loss due to illegal conversion of farmland—was not objectively proven in terms of the employee’s fault or the occurrence of loss.
It further held that, in determining the appropriate level of discipline, the employee’s length of service and merits, as well as the principle of applying discipline in stages, must be considered together. In light of these factors, the panel concluded that dismissal was markedly unreasonable by social standards and constituted an abuse and overstepping of the employer’s discretionary disciplinary authority.
In addition, since there were no separate rules regarding the timing of the formation of the Personnel Committee, and there was no fact that the employer exercised voting rights as a member of the Personnel Committee, the panel found that the procedural defects in the disciplinary process alleged by the employee were not established.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s standpoint, it is important to carefully contest which of the grounds for discipline asserted by the employer are objectively proven, particularly with respect to the facts and evidence surrounding alleged property loss or serious misconduct.
Even where some misconduct is admitted, the employee should logically argue that, considering the nature and degree of the misconduct, length of service, merits, prior disciplinary record, and whether any damage has been remedied, a lesser disciplinary measure than dismissal is appropriate.
Because the Labor Relations Commission places emphasis on the proportionality of disciplinary severity and its reasonableness in light of social norms, it is necessary to persuasively demonstrate—based on concrete facts and established legal principles—that “dismissal is excessively severe relative to the minor grounds.”
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s side, when proceeding with disciplinary dismissal based on multiple grounds, it is necessary to check in advance whether the employee’s fault and the occurrence of damage can be objectively substantiated for each ground, and whether dismissal would still be necessary even if only those grounds were considered.
In determining the level of discipline, it is safer to consider the disciplinary standards in the rules of employment and HR regulations, consistency with past similar cases, and the principle of progressive discipline, and to examine whether the objectives cannot be achieved through less severe measures such as a warning, pay cut, or suspension.
Furthermore, when forming and convening the Personnel Committee and following the prescribed procedures, it is advisable to clearly document, in writing, the specific grounds for discipline, supporting evidence, and the deliberation and resolution process, in order to prepare for potential future disputes.
(ⓒ2026 copyright. Labor Attorney Moon Young‑seop, Labor Law Firm Law&.)
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
Of the 14 grounds for discipline, some relatively minor grounds—such as falsification of the attendance record, damage to a company vehicle, poor management of the dormitory, and watching movies during working hours (grounds for discipline Nos. 5, 8, 12, 14)—are acknowledged. However, the other grounds for discipline—such as violation of quarantine rules, falsification of the breeding log, and property loss due to illegal conversion of farmland—are difficult to recognize as misconduct, because the employee’s fault and the occurrence of property loss have not been objectively proven.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
Although some acts of misconduct are acknowledged, considering comprehensively the nature and degree of the acknowledged misconduct, the employee’s length of service and merits, and the principle of applying discipline in stages, the decision to dismiss is deemed to have clearly lost its reasonableness by social standards and to constitute a departure from and abuse of the employer’s discretionary authority.
C. Legality of the disciplinary procedure
The employee argued that there were procedural defects in the disciplinary process, such as the Personnel Committee being formed on the same day, thereby infringing the employee’s right to defense. However, because there are no rules regarding the timing of the formation of the Personnel Committee, and there is no fact that the employer exercised voting rights as a member of the Personnel Committee during the disciplinary process, it was determined that there were no procedural defects in the disciplinary process.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
Of the 14 grounds for discipline, some relatively minor grounds—such as falsification of the attendance record, damage to a company vehicle, poor management of the dormitory, and watching movies during working hours (grounds for discipline Nos. 5, 8, 12, 14)—are acknowledged. However, the other grounds for discipline—such as violation of quarantine rules, falsification of the breeding log, and property loss due to illegal conversion of farmland—are difficult to recognize as misconduct, because the employee’s fault and the occurrence of property loss have not been objectively proven.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
Although some acts of misconduct are acknowledged, considering comprehensively the nature and degree of the acknowledged misconduct, the employee’s length of service and merits, and the principle of applying discipline in stages, the decision to dismiss is deemed to have clearly lost its reasonableness by social standards and to constitute a departure from and abuse of the employer’s discretionary authority.
C. Legality of the disciplinary procedure
The employee argued that there were procedural defects in the disciplinary process, such as the Personnel Committee being formed on the same day, thereby infringing the employee’s right to defense. However, because there are no rules regarding the timing of the formation of the Personnel Committee, and there is no fact that the employer exercised voting rights as a member of the Personnel Committee during the disciplinary process, it was determined that there were no procedural defects in the disciplinary process. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision
- ‘Non‑Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision – Decision Date: – Case Result: Initial Decision Upheld
- ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, excessive disciplinary severity (farm management · quarantine case), 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, “‘Defect in Written Notice (4 Major Social Insurance Loss Report)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to excessive disciplinary severity (farm management · quarantine case) can be viewed together at “List of Decisions Related to Excessive Disciplinary Severity (Farm Management · Quarantine Case).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
