Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Precedent Concerning “Disciplinary Severity (Traffic Accident · Document Damage)” (Unfair Dismissal 299)
- Date2026/03/20 04:04
- Read 213
[Case Information]
This case is a precedent in which the initial decision was upheld at the appeal stage on the issue of “disciplinary severity (traffic accident · document damage).”
Adjudicating Body: Central Labor Relations Commission 2025 Unfair Dismissal 1340 ○ ○ ○ Application for Re‑examination for Remedy of Unfair Dismissal
2026.01.12 · Case Result: Initial decision upheld
Summary of Key Issues:
A. Legitimacy of Disciplinary Measure 1
The traffic accident caused by the worker on 10 October 2024 constituted a violation of the duty of safe driving and therefore fell under the grounds for discipline set out in Article 85 of the Rules of Employment. The employer, in accordance with Annex 2 of the Disciplinary Severity Rules (Disciplinary Severity Criteria Table), imposed a seven‑day suspension from work. This cannot be deemed to have lost its validity to a remarkable extent in light of social norms, nor to constitute an abuse of the discretion granted to the disciplinary authority. As no defects in the disciplinary procedure were identified, the measure was held to be justified.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, after causing a traffic accident, the worker damaged important company documents and failed to comply with a request to submit a written explanation. For these reasons, the worker received disciplinary measures of a seven‑day suspension from work and a 15‑day suspension from work, respectively, and applied to the Labor Relations Commission for relief on the grounds of unfair dismissal, among others.
The Central Labor Relations Commission focused its review on the existence of grounds for discipline, the appropriateness of the level of discipline, and the legality of the disciplinary procedures, and upheld the initial decision in favor of the employer.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is “whether the worker’s traffic accident and the acts of damaging important company documents and failing to submit a written explanation fall under the grounds for discipline under the Rules of Employment, and whether the resulting disciplinary measures of a seven‑day and a 15‑day suspension from work constitute unfair discipline that departs from or abuses the employer’s discretionary authority in determining disciplinary severity.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The adjudicating panel in this case found that the worker’s traffic accident constituted a violation of the duty of safe driving and thus fell under the grounds for discipline under the Rules of Employment, that the company selected a seven‑day suspension from work in accordance with the internal Disciplinary Severity Criteria Table (Annex 2), and that no defects in the disciplinary procedures were identified.
It further found that the worker’s act of intentionally damaging and discarding important documents (the former drivers’ signature book), and the worker’s failure to comply with three separate requests to submit a written explanation, also fell under the grounds for discipline under the Rules of Employment, that the company imposed a 15‑day suspension from work in accordance with the Disciplinary Severity Criteria Table (Annex 1), and that it was difficult to view the disciplinary measures as having lost their validity to a remarkable extent in light of social norms.
Taking all of these factors into comprehensive consideration, the Commission held that the disciplinary measures in this case were taken within the scope of the disciplinary authority’s discretion, that the level of discipline was not excessive, and that there were no serious defects in the disciplinary procedures, and therefore found the measures to be justified.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective)
From the worker’s perspective, it should be borne in mind that violations of safety obligations directly related to work, such as traffic accidents, damage to important company documents, and refusal to submit a written explanation without just cause can all constitute grounds for discipline under the Rules of Employment.
In addition, the Labor Relations Commission will only find discipline to be unfair where the level of discipline is remarkably excessive in light of social norms. The mere fact that the worker feels the disciplinary measure is severe does not, in itself, make relief easy to obtain.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, it is important to clearly set out the grounds for discipline and the criteria for determining disciplinary severity in the Rules of Employment, to determine the level of disciplinary measures in accordance with those criteria tables in actual cases, and to strictly comply with the prescribed procedures.
In particular, when imposing discipline for misconduct such as traffic accidents or document damage, the employer should record in detail the circumstances of the accident or act, the degree of intent or negligence, and the impact on the company, so as to be prepared to prove before the Labor Relations Commission or the courts that there was no abuse of disciplinary discretion.
In this type of disciplinary case, the key is to systematically examine three pillars: the existence of grounds for discipline, compliance with disciplinary procedures, and the appropriateness of the level of discipline. Where disputes over unfair dismissal or discipline are anticipated, it is advisable to consult with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law& from the initial stage to establish a response strategy.
2. Matters Adjudicated
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Legitimacy of Disciplinary Measure 1
The traffic accident caused by the worker on 10 October 2024 constituted a violation of the duty of safe driving and therefore fell under the grounds for discipline set out in Article 85 of the Rules of Employment. The employer, in accordance with Annex 2 of the Disciplinary Severity Rules (Disciplinary Severity Criteria Table), imposed a seven‑day suspension from work. This cannot be deemed to have lost its validity to a remarkable extent in light of social norms, nor to constitute an abuse of the discretion granted to the disciplinary authority, and as no defects in the disciplinary procedure were identified, the measure was held to be justified.
B. Legitimacy of Disciplinary Measure 2
(1) The worker’s act on 10 February 2025 of intentionally damaging the company’s important documents (the former drivers’ signature book) and discarding them on the floor, and (2) the worker’s failure to submit a written explanation (refusal to receive the documents) despite the company’s three separate requests for submission, fell under the grounds for discipline set out in Article 85 of the Rules of Employment. The employer, in accordance with Annex 1 of the Disciplinary Severity Rules (Disciplinary Severity Criteria Table), imposed a 15‑day suspension from work. This cannot be deemed to have lost its validity to a remarkable extent in light of social norms, nor to constitute an abuse of the discretion granted to the disciplinary authority, and as no defects in the disciplinary procedure were identified, the measure was held to be justified.
3. Summary of Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Legitimacy of Disciplinary Measure 1
The traffic accident caused by the worker on 10 October 2024 constituted a violation of the duty of safe driving and therefore fell under the grounds for discipline set out in Article 85 of the Rules of Employment. The employer, in accordance with Annex 2 of the Disciplinary Severity Rules (Disciplinary Severity Criteria Table), imposed a seven‑day suspension from work. This cannot be deemed to have lost its validity to a remarkable extent in light of social norms, nor to constitute an abuse of the discretion granted to the disciplinary authority, and as no defects in the disciplinary procedure were identified, the measure was held to be justified.
B. Legitimacy of Disciplinary Measure 2
(1) The worker’s act on 10 February 2025 of intentionally damaging the company’s important documents (the former drivers’ signature book) and discarding them on the floor, and (2) the worker’s failure to submit a written explanation (refusal to receive the documents) despite the company’s three separate requests for submission, fell under the grounds for discipline set out in Article 85 of the Rules of Employment. The employer, in accordance with Annex 1 of the Disciplinary Severity Rules (Disciplinary Severity Criteria Table), imposed a 15‑day suspension from work. This cannot be deemed to have lost its validity to a remarkable extent in light of social norms, nor to constitute an abuse of the discretion granted to the disciplinary authority, and as no defects in the disciplinary procedure were identified, the measure was held to be justified. /
[See More Related Precedents]
- “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Concerning ‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Concerning ‘Non‑Formation of Employment Offer (Absence of Offer Letter)’” – Date of Decision: – Case Result: Initial decision upheld
- “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Concerning ‘Expression of Intention to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, disciplinary severity (traffic accident · document damage), 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 the “Unfair Dismissal Precedents” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ The previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Concerning ‘Existence of Dismissal (Handwritten Letter of Resignation upon Job Change)’,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of precedents related to disciplinary severity (traffic accident · document damage) can be viewed together at “List of Precedents Related to Disciplinary Severity (Traffic Accident · Document Damage).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a precedent in which the initial decision was upheld at the appeal stage on the issue of “disciplinary severity (traffic accident · document damage).”
Adjudicating Body: Central Labor Relations Commission 2025 Unfair Dismissal 1340 ○ ○ ○ Application for Re‑examination for Remedy of Unfair Dismissal
2026.01.12 · Case Result: Initial decision upheld
Summary of Key Issues:
A. Legitimacy of Disciplinary Measure 1
The traffic accident caused by the worker on 10 October 2024 constituted a violation of the duty of safe driving and therefore fell under the grounds for discipline set out in Article 85 of the Rules of Employment. The employer, in accordance with Annex 2 of the Disciplinary Severity Rules (Disciplinary Severity Criteria Table), imposed a seven‑day suspension from work. This cannot be deemed to have lost its validity to a remarkable extent in light of social norms, nor to constitute an abuse of the discretion granted to the disciplinary authority. As no defects in the disciplinary procedure were identified, the measure was held to be justified.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, after causing a traffic accident, the worker damaged important company documents and failed to comply with a request to submit a written explanation. For these reasons, the worker received disciplinary measures of a seven‑day suspension from work and a 15‑day suspension from work, respectively, and applied to the Labor Relations Commission for relief on the grounds of unfair dismissal, among others.
The Central Labor Relations Commission focused its review on the existence of grounds for discipline, the appropriateness of the level of discipline, and the legality of the disciplinary procedures, and upheld the initial decision in favor of the employer.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is “whether the worker’s traffic accident and the acts of damaging important company documents and failing to submit a written explanation fall under the grounds for discipline under the Rules of Employment, and whether the resulting disciplinary measures of a seven‑day and a 15‑day suspension from work constitute unfair discipline that departs from or abuses the employer’s discretionary authority in determining disciplinary severity.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The adjudicating panel in this case found that the worker’s traffic accident constituted a violation of the duty of safe driving and thus fell under the grounds for discipline under the Rules of Employment, that the company selected a seven‑day suspension from work in accordance with the internal Disciplinary Severity Criteria Table (Annex 2), and that no defects in the disciplinary procedures were identified.
It further found that the worker’s act of intentionally damaging and discarding important documents (the former drivers’ signature book), and the worker’s failure to comply with three separate requests to submit a written explanation, also fell under the grounds for discipline under the Rules of Employment, that the company imposed a 15‑day suspension from work in accordance with the Disciplinary Severity Criteria Table (Annex 1), and that it was difficult to view the disciplinary measures as having lost their validity to a remarkable extent in light of social norms.
Taking all of these factors into comprehensive consideration, the Commission held that the disciplinary measures in this case were taken within the scope of the disciplinary authority’s discretion, that the level of discipline was not excessive, and that there were no serious defects in the disciplinary procedures, and therefore found the measures to be justified.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective)
From the worker’s perspective, it should be borne in mind that violations of safety obligations directly related to work, such as traffic accidents, damage to important company documents, and refusal to submit a written explanation without just cause can all constitute grounds for discipline under the Rules of Employment.
In addition, the Labor Relations Commission will only find discipline to be unfair where the level of discipline is remarkably excessive in light of social norms. The mere fact that the worker feels the disciplinary measure is severe does not, in itself, make relief easy to obtain.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, it is important to clearly set out the grounds for discipline and the criteria for determining disciplinary severity in the Rules of Employment, to determine the level of disciplinary measures in accordance with those criteria tables in actual cases, and to strictly comply with the prescribed procedures.
In particular, when imposing discipline for misconduct such as traffic accidents or document damage, the employer should record in detail the circumstances of the accident or act, the degree of intent or negligence, and the impact on the company, so as to be prepared to prove before the Labor Relations Commission or the courts that there was no abuse of disciplinary discretion.
In this type of disciplinary case, the key is to systematically examine three pillars: the existence of grounds for discipline, compliance with disciplinary procedures, and the appropriateness of the level of discipline. Where disputes over unfair dismissal or discipline are anticipated, it is advisable to consult with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law& from the initial stage to establish a response strategy.
2. Matters Adjudicated
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Legitimacy of Disciplinary Measure 1
The traffic accident caused by the worker on 10 October 2024 constituted a violation of the duty of safe driving and therefore fell under the grounds for discipline set out in Article 85 of the Rules of Employment. The employer, in accordance with Annex 2 of the Disciplinary Severity Rules (Disciplinary Severity Criteria Table), imposed a seven‑day suspension from work. This cannot be deemed to have lost its validity to a remarkable extent in light of social norms, nor to constitute an abuse of the discretion granted to the disciplinary authority, and as no defects in the disciplinary procedure were identified, the measure was held to be justified.
B. Legitimacy of Disciplinary Measure 2
(1) The worker’s act on 10 February 2025 of intentionally damaging the company’s important documents (the former drivers’ signature book) and discarding them on the floor, and (2) the worker’s failure to submit a written explanation (refusal to receive the documents) despite the company’s three separate requests for submission, fell under the grounds for discipline set out in Article 85 of the Rules of Employment. The employer, in accordance with Annex 1 of the Disciplinary Severity Rules (Disciplinary Severity Criteria Table), imposed a 15‑day suspension from work. This cannot be deemed to have lost its validity to a remarkable extent in light of social norms, nor to constitute an abuse of the discretion granted to the disciplinary authority, and as no defects in the disciplinary procedure were identified, the measure was held to be justified.
3. Summary of Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Legitimacy of Disciplinary Measure 1
The traffic accident caused by the worker on 10 October 2024 constituted a violation of the duty of safe driving and therefore fell under the grounds for discipline set out in Article 85 of the Rules of Employment. The employer, in accordance with Annex 2 of the Disciplinary Severity Rules (Disciplinary Severity Criteria Table), imposed a seven‑day suspension from work. This cannot be deemed to have lost its validity to a remarkable extent in light of social norms, nor to constitute an abuse of the discretion granted to the disciplinary authority, and as no defects in the disciplinary procedure were identified, the measure was held to be justified.
B. Legitimacy of Disciplinary Measure 2
(1) The worker’s act on 10 February 2025 of intentionally damaging the company’s important documents (the former drivers’ signature book) and discarding them on the floor, and (2) the worker’s failure to submit a written explanation (refusal to receive the documents) despite the company’s three separate requests for submission, fell under the grounds for discipline set out in Article 85 of the Rules of Employment. The employer, in accordance with Annex 1 of the Disciplinary Severity Rules (Disciplinary Severity Criteria Table), imposed a 15‑day suspension from work. This cannot be deemed to have lost its validity to a remarkable extent in light of social norms, nor to constitute an abuse of the discretion granted to the disciplinary authority, and as no defects in the disciplinary procedure were identified, the measure was held to be justified. /
[See More Related Precedents]
- “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Concerning ‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Concerning ‘Non‑Formation of Employment Offer (Absence of Offer Letter)’” – Date of Decision: – Case Result: Initial decision upheld
- “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Concerning ‘Expression of Intention to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, disciplinary severity (traffic accident · document damage), 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 the “Unfair Dismissal Precedents” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ The previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Concerning ‘Existence of Dismissal (Handwritten Letter of Resignation upon Job Change)’,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of precedents related to disciplinary severity (traffic accident · document damage) can be viewed together at “List of Precedents Related to Disciplinary Severity (Traffic Accident · Document Damage).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
