Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Decision on “Disciplinary Sanction Level (14 Days of Absence Out of 18 Working Days)” (Unfair Dismissal 284)
- Date2026/03/15 04:04
- Read 214
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “disciplinary sanction level (14 days of absence out of 18 working days).”
Decision Committee: Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae9066 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.01.13 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issues:
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
It was confirmed that the employee was absent for 14 days out of the 18 days that were the subject of discipline, and frequent absence constitutes a violation of the duty of good faith, thereby falling under grounds for discipline.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This unfair dismissal case was handled by the Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission. The employer imposed a disciplinary sanction (two months’ suspension from duty) on the employee due to frequent absences, after which the employee filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission for a remedy for unfair dismissal. The employee challenged the disciplinary action as unjust, arguing that there were no grounds for discipline, that the level of discipline was excessive, and that there were procedural defects in the disciplinary process. The Labor Relations Commission, after comprehensively reviewing the relevant provisions and factual circumstances, ruled in favor of the employer.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issues in this case are whether, in a situation where the employee was absent for 14 days out of 18 working days (a very high rate of absence), a disciplinary sanction of two months’ suspension from duty is appropriate, and whether the disciplinary process is rendered invalid due to material defects on the ground that it proceeded without any separate additional investigation.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
The decision panel in this case noted that it was objectively confirmed that the employee was absent for 14 days out of the 18 days that were the subject of discipline; that frequent absence constitutes a violation of the employee’s duty of good faith and, as such, falls under grounds for discipline under the work rules; that the employee’s absences continued despite multiple requests from the employer to comply with service regulations; that the absence rate was extremely high at 77.8%, and that, under the workplace’s disciplinary sanction standards, a two‑month suspension could not be considered excessive; that the grounds for discipline were clear such that no separate additional investigation was necessary, and the employee was given an opportunity to explain in both the initial and re‑examination disciplinary committee proceedings; and that, although there were some clerical errors in the citation of provisions in the written disciplinary decision, the grounds for discipline themselves were clearly stated.
In light of the above, the Commission held that the dismissal in this case did not suffer from any material defect in terms of the existence of grounds for discipline, the level of discipline, or the disciplinary procedures, and that it could not be regarded as having clearly lost its validity under social norms.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, once unauthorized absences exceed a certain level, a severe disciplinary sanction may be justified even if it is not a separate redundancy dismissal. In particular, where the absence rate is very high, it should be borne in mind that the Labor Relations Commission tends to recognize the employer’s exercise of disciplinary authority broadly. It should also be noted that where an actual opportunity to explain has been afforded during the disciplinary process, it is difficult to invalidate the entire disciplinary action solely on the basis of simple clerical errors in the disciplinary notice.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, it is important to clearly set out in the work rules and service regulations the grounds for discipline and the standards for disciplinary sanctions related to unauthorized absences, and to document step‑by‑step measures such as written warnings and requests for compliance with regulations in response to repeated absences. Even in cases where the grounds for discipline are clear, the employer should still ensure that basic procedures are followed, such as convening a disciplinary committee, providing prior notice, and granting the employee an opportunity to make statements and explanations, and should maintain documentation demonstrating that the level of discipline is not excessive when compared with internal standards.
To prevail in this type of case, it is essential to systematically organize information on the period and rate of unauthorized absences, whether prior warnings were issued, and the workplace’s disciplinary sanction standards, and to prepare in advance sufficient evidence regarding the existence of grounds for discipline, the appropriateness of the level of discipline, and the lawfulness of the disciplinary procedures, as required by the Labor Relations Commission and the courts. From the Labor Relations Commission stage, working with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law& to develop a strategy will be of great assistance in preventing and responding to disputes.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
It was confirmed that the employee was absent for 14 days out of the 18 days that were the subject of discipline, and frequent absence constitutes a violation of the duty of good faith, thereby falling under grounds for discipline.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
In light of the fact that the employee’s absences continued despite the employer’s requests to comply with service regulations, the employee’s absence rate (77.8%), and the workplace’s disciplinary sanction standards, a two‑month suspension from duty is appropriate.
C. Lawfulness of the disciplinary procedures
Given that the grounds for discipline were clearly established such that no separate investigation was necessary, that the employee was given an opportunity to explain in both the initial and re‑examination disciplinary committee proceedings, and that, although there were clerical errors in the citation of provisions in the written disciplinary decision, the grounds for discipline were stated, there is no material defect sufficient to render the disciplinary disposition invalid.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
It was confirmed that the employee was absent for 14 days out of the 18 days that were the subject of discipline, and frequent absence constitutes a violation of the duty of good faith, thereby falling under grounds for discipline.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
In light of the fact that the employee’s absences continued despite the employer’s requests to comply with service regulations, the employee’s absence rate (77.8%), and the workplace’s disciplinary sanction standards, a two‑month suspension from duty is appropriate.
C. Lawfulness of the disciplinary procedures
Given that the grounds for discipline were clearly established such that no separate investigation was necessary, that the employee was given an opportunity to explain in both the initial and re‑examination disciplinary committee proceedings, and that, although there were clerical errors in the citation of provisions in the written disciplinary decision, the grounds for discipline were stated, there is no material defect sufficient to render the disciplinary disposition invalid. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark Made Over the Phone)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Non‑Formation of Employment Offer (Absence of Offer Letter)’” – Date of decision: – Case result: Initial decision upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, disciplinary sanction level (14 days of absence out of 18 working days), unauthorized absence, disciplinary dismissal, 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 Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Evaluation for Refusal to Renew (Lowest Score for Fixed‑Term Employee)’,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to disciplinary sanction level (14 days of absence out of 18 working days) can be found at “List of Decisions Related to Disciplinary Sanction Level (14 Days of Absence Out of 18 Working Days).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “disciplinary sanction level (14 days of absence out of 18 working days).”
Decision Committee: Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae9066 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.01.13 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issues:
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
It was confirmed that the employee was absent for 14 days out of the 18 days that were the subject of discipline, and frequent absence constitutes a violation of the duty of good faith, thereby falling under grounds for discipline.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This unfair dismissal case was handled by the Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission. The employer imposed a disciplinary sanction (two months’ suspension from duty) on the employee due to frequent absences, after which the employee filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission for a remedy for unfair dismissal. The employee challenged the disciplinary action as unjust, arguing that there were no grounds for discipline, that the level of discipline was excessive, and that there were procedural defects in the disciplinary process. The Labor Relations Commission, after comprehensively reviewing the relevant provisions and factual circumstances, ruled in favor of the employer.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issues in this case are whether, in a situation where the employee was absent for 14 days out of 18 working days (a very high rate of absence), a disciplinary sanction of two months’ suspension from duty is appropriate, and whether the disciplinary process is rendered invalid due to material defects on the ground that it proceeded without any separate additional investigation.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
The decision panel in this case noted that it was objectively confirmed that the employee was absent for 14 days out of the 18 days that were the subject of discipline; that frequent absence constitutes a violation of the employee’s duty of good faith and, as such, falls under grounds for discipline under the work rules; that the employee’s absences continued despite multiple requests from the employer to comply with service regulations; that the absence rate was extremely high at 77.8%, and that, under the workplace’s disciplinary sanction standards, a two‑month suspension could not be considered excessive; that the grounds for discipline were clear such that no separate additional investigation was necessary, and the employee was given an opportunity to explain in both the initial and re‑examination disciplinary committee proceedings; and that, although there were some clerical errors in the citation of provisions in the written disciplinary decision, the grounds for discipline themselves were clearly stated.
In light of the above, the Commission held that the dismissal in this case did not suffer from any material defect in terms of the existence of grounds for discipline, the level of discipline, or the disciplinary procedures, and that it could not be regarded as having clearly lost its validity under social norms.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, once unauthorized absences exceed a certain level, a severe disciplinary sanction may be justified even if it is not a separate redundancy dismissal. In particular, where the absence rate is very high, it should be borne in mind that the Labor Relations Commission tends to recognize the employer’s exercise of disciplinary authority broadly. It should also be noted that where an actual opportunity to explain has been afforded during the disciplinary process, it is difficult to invalidate the entire disciplinary action solely on the basis of simple clerical errors in the disciplinary notice.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, it is important to clearly set out in the work rules and service regulations the grounds for discipline and the standards for disciplinary sanctions related to unauthorized absences, and to document step‑by‑step measures such as written warnings and requests for compliance with regulations in response to repeated absences. Even in cases where the grounds for discipline are clear, the employer should still ensure that basic procedures are followed, such as convening a disciplinary committee, providing prior notice, and granting the employee an opportunity to make statements and explanations, and should maintain documentation demonstrating that the level of discipline is not excessive when compared with internal standards.
To prevail in this type of case, it is essential to systematically organize information on the period and rate of unauthorized absences, whether prior warnings were issued, and the workplace’s disciplinary sanction standards, and to prepare in advance sufficient evidence regarding the existence of grounds for discipline, the appropriateness of the level of discipline, and the lawfulness of the disciplinary procedures, as required by the Labor Relations Commission and the courts. From the Labor Relations Commission stage, working with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law& to develop a strategy will be of great assistance in preventing and responding to disputes.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
It was confirmed that the employee was absent for 14 days out of the 18 days that were the subject of discipline, and frequent absence constitutes a violation of the duty of good faith, thereby falling under grounds for discipline.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
In light of the fact that the employee’s absences continued despite the employer’s requests to comply with service regulations, the employee’s absence rate (77.8%), and the workplace’s disciplinary sanction standards, a two‑month suspension from duty is appropriate.
C. Lawfulness of the disciplinary procedures
Given that the grounds for discipline were clearly established such that no separate investigation was necessary, that the employee was given an opportunity to explain in both the initial and re‑examination disciplinary committee proceedings, and that, although there were clerical errors in the citation of provisions in the written disciplinary decision, the grounds for discipline were stated, there is no material defect sufficient to render the disciplinary disposition invalid.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
It was confirmed that the employee was absent for 14 days out of the 18 days that were the subject of discipline, and frequent absence constitutes a violation of the duty of good faith, thereby falling under grounds for discipline.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
In light of the fact that the employee’s absences continued despite the employer’s requests to comply with service regulations, the employee’s absence rate (77.8%), and the workplace’s disciplinary sanction standards, a two‑month suspension from duty is appropriate.
C. Lawfulness of the disciplinary procedures
Given that the grounds for discipline were clearly established such that no separate investigation was necessary, that the employee was given an opportunity to explain in both the initial and re‑examination disciplinary committee proceedings, and that, although there were clerical errors in the citation of provisions in the written disciplinary decision, the grounds for discipline were stated, there is no material defect sufficient to render the disciplinary disposition invalid. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark Made Over the Phone)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Non‑Formation of Employment Offer (Absence of Offer Letter)’” – Date of decision: – Case result: Initial decision upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, disciplinary sanction level (14 days of absence out of 18 working days), unauthorized absence, disciplinary dismissal, 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 Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Evaluation for Refusal to Renew (Lowest Score for Fixed‑Term Employee)’,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to disciplinary sanction level (14 days of absence out of 18 working days) can be found at “List of Decisions Related to Disciplinary Sanction Level (14 Days of Absence Out of 18 Working Days).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
