Corporate trends / Performance record
‘Excessive Disciplinary Sanction (Dispute over Change of Annual Leave Period)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision (Unfair Dismissal 273)
- Date2026/03/10 04:09
- Read 201
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employee prevailed in full on the issue of “excessive disciplinary sanction (dispute over change of annual leave period).”
Decision Committee: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae9671 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.01.14 · Case outcome: Fully upheld
Summary of key issues:
A. Existence of a remedial interest in challenging the disciplinary action: Even if the employee has resigned, there remains a remedial interest because the Labor Relations Commission may order the employer to pay the amount corresponding to the wages reduced by the disciplinary measure.
B. Existence of grounds for discipline: The employer’s exercise of the right to change the timing of annual leave did not satisfy the statutory requirements, so the first disciplinary ground (unauthorized leaving of the workplace on 16 September 2025) and the second disciplinary grounds (unauthorized leaving of the workplace on 23 September and 10 October 2025) could not be recognized as grounds for discipline, whereas …
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employee, after receiving a disciplinary wage reduction and then resigning, filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission for a remedy for unfair dismissal (discipline). The Commission examined whether the grounds for discipline existed and whether the level of discipline (disciplinary quantum) was appropriate.
The Commission comprehensively reviewed the dispute surrounding the employer’s change of the timing of annual leave, alleged unauthorized leaving of the workplace and unauthorized outings, and alleged insincere work performance. While it recognized only part of the alleged misconduct as valid grounds for discipline, it nevertheless found that the overall level of discipline was excessive.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issues in this case are:
“Whether a remedial interest before the Labor Relations Commission exists with respect to wage reduction due to discipline even after the employee has already resigned; whether alleged unauthorized leaving of the workplace, unauthorized outings, and insincere work performance can be recognized as grounds for discipline where the employer has failed to lawfully exercise its right to change the timing of annual leave; and, furthermore, whether the overall disciplinary quantum can be deemed justified where only some of the alleged misconduct is recognized.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
The panel in this case held that: even if the employee has resigned, there is a remedial interest because it can order payment of the amount corresponding to the wages reduced by the disciplinary measure; the employer’s exercise of the right to change the timing of annual leave did not satisfy the statutory requirements, so the disciplinary grounds premised on that (unauthorized leaving of the workplace) cannot be recognized; the employer failed to submit evidence to prove the employee’s insincere work performance; however, three instances of unauthorized outings during working hours, as part of the second set of disciplinary grounds, could be recognized as grounds for discipline because the fact that the employee visited a hospital during working hours was confirmed by objective evidence such as medical records.
As a result, none of the first set of disciplinary grounds and only part of the second set of disciplinary grounds were recognized, and the overall disciplinary quantum was found to be markedly excessive by social standards.
Accordingly, the dismissal in this case was held to be unfair on the basis that, although some grounds for discipline existed, the disciplinary quantum was excessive in light of those grounds.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (Employee Perspective)
Employees should bear in mind that even after resignation, if their wages have been reduced due to unfair dismissal or unfair discipline, they may file an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission and obtain an order for payment of the reduced amount.
In addition, annual leave is deemed to have been lawfully used unless the employer has requested a change in the timing of the leave in compliance with the statutory requirements. Therefore, where discipline for “unauthorized leaving” is imposed on this basis, employees should carefully check the relevant instructions and notifications.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (Employer (Company) Perspective)
When exercising the right to change the timing of annual leave, employers must be able to prove that they have satisfied the statutory requirements and procedures, such as “serious disruption to business operations,” by systematically retaining written instructions and materials showing business needs.
Furthermore, if the evidence supporting the grounds for discipline covers only part of the alleged misconduct, and the employer does not select a disciplinary quantum commensurate with that proven misconduct, the Labor Relations Commission or the courts may find an abuse of discretion. Employers should therefore carefully set a graduated level of disciplinary measures after comprehensively considering the degree and frequency of misconduct and the extent of damage.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Existence of a remedial interest in this disciplinary action
Even if the employee has resigned, there is a remedial interest because, through the application for remedy, an order can be issued to pay the amount corresponding to the wages reduced by the disciplinary measure.
B. Existence of grounds for discipline
The employer’s exercise of the right to change the timing of annual leave did not satisfy the requirements, so the first disciplinary ground—unauthorized leaving of the workplace on 16 September 2025—and the second disciplinary grounds—unauthorized leaving of the workplace on 23 September and 10 October 2025—cannot be recognized as grounds for discipline. The allegation of insincere work performance by the employee is not recognized due to lack of evidentiary materials.
By contrast, among the second set of disciplinary grounds, the employee’s three instances of unauthorized outings constitute grounds for discipline, as the fact that the employee visited a hospital during working hours is established by medical records and other materials.
C. Appropriateness of the disciplinary quantum
In light of the fact that none of the first set of disciplinary grounds and only part of the second set of disciplinary grounds are recognized, the disciplinary quantum is excessive.
D. Legality of the disciplinary procedure
There are no procedural defects in the disciplinary process.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
A. Existence of a remedial interest in this disciplinary action
Even if the employee has resigned, there is a remedial interest because, through the application for remedy, an order can be issued to pay the amount corresponding to the wages reduced by the disciplinary measure.
B. Existence of grounds for discipline
The employer’s exercise of the right to change the timing of annual leave did not satisfy the requirements, so the first disciplinary ground—unauthorized leaving of the workplace on 16 September 2025—and the second disciplinary grounds—unauthorized leaving of the workplace on 23 September and 10 October 2025—cannot be recognized as grounds for discipline. The allegation of insincere work performance by the employee is not recognized due to lack of evidentiary materials.
By contrast, among the second set of disciplinary grounds, the employee’s three instances of unauthorized outings constitute grounds for discipline, as the fact that the employee visited a hospital during working hours is established by medical records and other materials.
C. Appropriateness of the disciplinary quantum
In light of the fact that none of the first set of disciplinary grounds and only part of the second set of disciplinary grounds are recognized, the disciplinary quantum is excessive.
D. Legality of the disciplinary procedure
There are no procedural defects in the disciplinary process. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- ‘Discipline of Whistleblower (Internal Workplace Report)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision
- ‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision
- ‘No Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision – Date of decision: – Case outcome: Initial decision upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, excessive disciplinary sanction (dispute over change of annual leave period), disciplinary dismissal, unauthorized absence, 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.
※ The previous article, “‘Discipline of Whistleblower (Internal Workplace Report)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to excessive disciplinary sanction (dispute over change of annual leave period) can be viewed together in the “List of Decisions Related to Excessive Disciplinary Sanction (Dispute over Change of Annual Leave Period).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the employee prevailed in full on the issue of “excessive disciplinary sanction (dispute over change of annual leave period).”
Decision Committee: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae9671 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.01.14 · Case outcome: Fully upheld
Summary of key issues:
A. Existence of a remedial interest in challenging the disciplinary action: Even if the employee has resigned, there remains a remedial interest because the Labor Relations Commission may order the employer to pay the amount corresponding to the wages reduced by the disciplinary measure.
B. Existence of grounds for discipline: The employer’s exercise of the right to change the timing of annual leave did not satisfy the statutory requirements, so the first disciplinary ground (unauthorized leaving of the workplace on 16 September 2025) and the second disciplinary grounds (unauthorized leaving of the workplace on 23 September and 10 October 2025) could not be recognized as grounds for discipline, whereas …
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employee, after receiving a disciplinary wage reduction and then resigning, filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission for a remedy for unfair dismissal (discipline). The Commission examined whether the grounds for discipline existed and whether the level of discipline (disciplinary quantum) was appropriate.
The Commission comprehensively reviewed the dispute surrounding the employer’s change of the timing of annual leave, alleged unauthorized leaving of the workplace and unauthorized outings, and alleged insincere work performance. While it recognized only part of the alleged misconduct as valid grounds for discipline, it nevertheless found that the overall level of discipline was excessive.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issues in this case are:
“Whether a remedial interest before the Labor Relations Commission exists with respect to wage reduction due to discipline even after the employee has already resigned; whether alleged unauthorized leaving of the workplace, unauthorized outings, and insincere work performance can be recognized as grounds for discipline where the employer has failed to lawfully exercise its right to change the timing of annual leave; and, furthermore, whether the overall disciplinary quantum can be deemed justified where only some of the alleged misconduct is recognized.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
The panel in this case held that: even if the employee has resigned, there is a remedial interest because it can order payment of the amount corresponding to the wages reduced by the disciplinary measure; the employer’s exercise of the right to change the timing of annual leave did not satisfy the statutory requirements, so the disciplinary grounds premised on that (unauthorized leaving of the workplace) cannot be recognized; the employer failed to submit evidence to prove the employee’s insincere work performance; however, three instances of unauthorized outings during working hours, as part of the second set of disciplinary grounds, could be recognized as grounds for discipline because the fact that the employee visited a hospital during working hours was confirmed by objective evidence such as medical records.
As a result, none of the first set of disciplinary grounds and only part of the second set of disciplinary grounds were recognized, and the overall disciplinary quantum was found to be markedly excessive by social standards.
Accordingly, the dismissal in this case was held to be unfair on the basis that, although some grounds for discipline existed, the disciplinary quantum was excessive in light of those grounds.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (Employee Perspective)
Employees should bear in mind that even after resignation, if their wages have been reduced due to unfair dismissal or unfair discipline, they may file an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission and obtain an order for payment of the reduced amount.
In addition, annual leave is deemed to have been lawfully used unless the employer has requested a change in the timing of the leave in compliance with the statutory requirements. Therefore, where discipline for “unauthorized leaving” is imposed on this basis, employees should carefully check the relevant instructions and notifications.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (Employer (Company) Perspective)
When exercising the right to change the timing of annual leave, employers must be able to prove that they have satisfied the statutory requirements and procedures, such as “serious disruption to business operations,” by systematically retaining written instructions and materials showing business needs.
Furthermore, if the evidence supporting the grounds for discipline covers only part of the alleged misconduct, and the employer does not select a disciplinary quantum commensurate with that proven misconduct, the Labor Relations Commission or the courts may find an abuse of discretion. Employers should therefore carefully set a graduated level of disciplinary measures after comprehensively considering the degree and frequency of misconduct and the extent of damage.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Existence of a remedial interest in this disciplinary action
Even if the employee has resigned, there is a remedial interest because, through the application for remedy, an order can be issued to pay the amount corresponding to the wages reduced by the disciplinary measure.
B. Existence of grounds for discipline
The employer’s exercise of the right to change the timing of annual leave did not satisfy the requirements, so the first disciplinary ground—unauthorized leaving of the workplace on 16 September 2025—and the second disciplinary grounds—unauthorized leaving of the workplace on 23 September and 10 October 2025—cannot be recognized as grounds for discipline. The allegation of insincere work performance by the employee is not recognized due to lack of evidentiary materials.
By contrast, among the second set of disciplinary grounds, the employee’s three instances of unauthorized outings constitute grounds for discipline, as the fact that the employee visited a hospital during working hours is established by medical records and other materials.
C. Appropriateness of the disciplinary quantum
In light of the fact that none of the first set of disciplinary grounds and only part of the second set of disciplinary grounds are recognized, the disciplinary quantum is excessive.
D. Legality of the disciplinary procedure
There are no procedural defects in the disciplinary process.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
A. Existence of a remedial interest in this disciplinary action
Even if the employee has resigned, there is a remedial interest because, through the application for remedy, an order can be issued to pay the amount corresponding to the wages reduced by the disciplinary measure.
B. Existence of grounds for discipline
The employer’s exercise of the right to change the timing of annual leave did not satisfy the requirements, so the first disciplinary ground—unauthorized leaving of the workplace on 16 September 2025—and the second disciplinary grounds—unauthorized leaving of the workplace on 23 September and 10 October 2025—cannot be recognized as grounds for discipline. The allegation of insincere work performance by the employee is not recognized due to lack of evidentiary materials.
By contrast, among the second set of disciplinary grounds, the employee’s three instances of unauthorized outings constitute grounds for discipline, as the fact that the employee visited a hospital during working hours is established by medical records and other materials.
C. Appropriateness of the disciplinary quantum
In light of the fact that none of the first set of disciplinary grounds and only part of the second set of disciplinary grounds are recognized, the disciplinary quantum is excessive.
D. Legality of the disciplinary procedure
There are no procedural defects in the disciplinary process. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- ‘Discipline of Whistleblower (Internal Workplace Report)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision
- ‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision
- ‘No Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision – Date of decision: – Case outcome: Initial decision upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, excessive disciplinary sanction (dispute over change of annual leave period), disciplinary dismissal, unauthorized absence, 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.
※ The previous article, “‘Discipline of Whistleblower (Internal Workplace Report)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to excessive disciplinary sanction (dispute over change of annual leave period) can be viewed together in the “List of Decisions Related to Excessive Disciplinary Sanction (Dispute over Change of Annual Leave Period).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
