Corporate trends / Performance record
‘Disciplinary Severity (Boarding with Unscreened Carry-On Luggage)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision (Unfair Dismissal 300)
- Date2026/03/20 04:08
- Read 204
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “disciplinary severity (boarding with carry-on luggage that had not undergone security screening).”
Adjudicating body: Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission
2025 Unfair Dismissal 9101 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
Decision date: 2026.01.12 · Result: Dismissed
Summary of key issues:
A. Whether grounds for discipline existed
The employee argued that purchasing and receiving duty-free goods is an exercise of rights by a passenger holding a passport and boarding pass, that the carry-on luggage had undergone security screening and therefore did not constitute a violation of the Aviation Security Act, and that it was unfair to treat this as grounds for discipline when any regulatory violation had not yet been officially confirmed. However, if such conduct is explicitly prohibited under internal rules and it is acknowledged that the company’s internal regulations were violated, a disciplinary action based on this cannot automatically be deemed unfair...
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, an employee working at an airport was dismissed (disciplinary dismissal and other disciplinary measures) for violating the company’s internal rules in the course of purchasing and receiving duty-free goods and for bringing onto an aircraft a carry-on bag that had not undergone outbound security screening. The employee filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission seeking a remedy for unfair dismissal.
The Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission focused its examination on (i) whether grounds for discipline existed, (ii) whether the severity of the disciplinary measure was appropriate, and (iii) whether there were any defects in the disciplinary procedures, and ultimately dismissed the employee’s application for remedy.
Ⅱ. Issues
The issue in this case is:
“Where the process of assisting with duty-free collection and bringing carry-on luggage onto the aircraft has not yet been definitively determined to constitute a violation of the Aviation Security Act, does a dismissal based solely on violation of internal company rules amount to unfair dismissal, and are the severity and procedures of such discipline legitimate?”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case noted that the employee’s conduct fell under conduct explicitly prohibited by the company’s internal rules; that, in particular, boarding an aircraft with carry-on luggage that had not undergone outbound security screening can be regarded as serious misconduct directly related to aircraft safety; that, in light of the disciplinary purposes of establishing organizational order and preventing recurrence, the level of discipline could not easily be considered excessively severe by social standards; and that, even if there were some issues in the course of interviews and the preparation of written statements of fact, these did not amount to serious defects sufficient to undermine the overall legitimacy of the disciplinary procedure.
Accordingly, the Commission held that the dismissal in this case fell within the employer’s discretionary authority in terms of grounds for discipline, severity of discipline, and disciplinary procedures, and determined that the employee’s claim of unfair dismissal could not be accepted.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s standpoint, it should be noted that, irrespective of whether criminal punishment is imposed or whether a violation of the Aviation Security Act is definitively established, violating conduct that is explicitly prohibited in internal rules such as the rules of employment or company regulations can in itself constitute serious grounds for discipline.
In industries directly connected to safety, such as aviation and transportation, employees should be particularly careful not to violate security screening, access, or carry-on procedures, even inadvertently. They should thoroughly understand the training content and manuals in advance, and where instructions are ambiguous, they should always obtain prior confirmation from a superior.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, it is important to clearly specify in the rules of employment and HR regulations the prohibited acts related to aviation security, safety, and security screening, and to ensure through regular training that employees fully understand these provisions.
In addition, when conducting disciplinary proceedings, employers should document the processes of investigation, interviews, and preparation of written statements of fact, and convene the disciplinary committee, issue notices, and adopt resolutions in accordance with the regulations. This will help ensure that, even if there are some procedural flaws, the overall fairness of the procedure is not called into question.
2. Matters Adjudicated
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Whether grounds for discipline existed
The employee argued that purchasing and receiving duty-free goods is an exercise of rights by a passenger holding a passport and boarding pass, that the carry-on luggage had undergone security screening and therefore did not constitute a violation of the Aviation Security Act, and that it was unfair to treat this as grounds for discipline when any regulatory violation had not yet been officially confirmed. However, if such conduct is explicitly prohibited under internal rules and it is acknowledged that the company’s internal regulations were violated, a disciplinary action based on this cannot automatically be deemed unfair.
B. Whether the severity of the disciplinary measure was appropriate
The nature and degree of the misconduct cannot be regarded as minor, and in particular, boarding an aircraft with carry-on luggage that had not undergone outbound security screening is directly connected to aircraft safety, making severe sanctions unavoidable to some extent. In addition, in light of the disciplinary purposes of establishing organizational order and preventing recurrence, the level of discipline cannot easily be considered excessively severe by social standards.
C. Whether the disciplinary procedures were lawful
The issues raised by the employee regarding the interview and the process of preparing the written statement of fact are part of the investigation process and do not constitute serious defects that would undermine the legitimacy of the entire disciplinary procedure. Even if there were some procedural problems, they are not sufficient to be regarded as serious defects that would render the entire disciplinary procedure null and void.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Whether grounds for discipline existed
The employee argued that purchasing and receiving duty-free goods is an exercise of rights by a passenger holding a passport and boarding pass, that the carry-on luggage had undergone security screening and therefore did not constitute a violation of the Aviation Security Act, and that it was unfair to treat this as grounds for discipline when any regulatory violation had not yet been officially confirmed. However, if such conduct is explicitly prohibited under internal rules and it is acknowledged that the company’s internal regulations were violated, a disciplinary action based on this cannot automatically be deemed unfair.
B. Whether the severity of the disciplinary measure was appropriate
The nature and degree of the misconduct cannot be regarded as minor, and in particular, boarding an aircraft with carry-on luggage that had not undergone outbound security screening is directly connected to aircraft safety, making severe sanctions unavoidable to some extent. In addition, in light of the disciplinary purposes of establishing organizational order and preventing recurrence, the level of discipline cannot easily be considered excessively severe by social standards.
C. Whether the disciplinary procedures were lawful
The issues raised by the employee regarding the interview and the process of preparing the written statement of fact are part of the investigation process and do not constitute serious defects that would undermine the legitimacy of the entire disciplinary procedure. Even if there were some procedural problems, they are not sufficient to be regarded as serious defects that would render the entire disciplinary procedure null and void. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Disciplinary Severity (Traffic Accident · Document Destruction)” Unfair Dismissal Decision
- “Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)” Unfair Dismissal Decision
- “Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)” Unfair Dismissal Decision
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, disciplinary severity (boarding with carry-on luggage that had not undergone security screening), disciplinary dismissal, violation of company policy · failure to comply with work orders, 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, “Disciplinary Severity (Traffic Accident · Document Destruction) Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to disciplinary severity (boarding with carry-on luggage that had not undergone security screening) can be viewed together on the “Disciplinary Severity (Boarding with Carry-On Luggage That Had Not Undergone Security Screening) Related Decisions” page.
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “disciplinary severity (boarding with carry-on luggage that had not undergone security screening).”
Adjudicating body: Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission
2025 Unfair Dismissal 9101 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
Decision date: 2026.01.12 · Result: Dismissed
Summary of key issues:
A. Whether grounds for discipline existed
The employee argued that purchasing and receiving duty-free goods is an exercise of rights by a passenger holding a passport and boarding pass, that the carry-on luggage had undergone security screening and therefore did not constitute a violation of the Aviation Security Act, and that it was unfair to treat this as grounds for discipline when any regulatory violation had not yet been officially confirmed. However, if such conduct is explicitly prohibited under internal rules and it is acknowledged that the company’s internal regulations were violated, a disciplinary action based on this cannot automatically be deemed unfair...
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, an employee working at an airport was dismissed (disciplinary dismissal and other disciplinary measures) for violating the company’s internal rules in the course of purchasing and receiving duty-free goods and for bringing onto an aircraft a carry-on bag that had not undergone outbound security screening. The employee filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission seeking a remedy for unfair dismissal.
The Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission focused its examination on (i) whether grounds for discipline existed, (ii) whether the severity of the disciplinary measure was appropriate, and (iii) whether there were any defects in the disciplinary procedures, and ultimately dismissed the employee’s application for remedy.
Ⅱ. Issues
The issue in this case is:
“Where the process of assisting with duty-free collection and bringing carry-on luggage onto the aircraft has not yet been definitively determined to constitute a violation of the Aviation Security Act, does a dismissal based solely on violation of internal company rules amount to unfair dismissal, and are the severity and procedures of such discipline legitimate?”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case noted that the employee’s conduct fell under conduct explicitly prohibited by the company’s internal rules; that, in particular, boarding an aircraft with carry-on luggage that had not undergone outbound security screening can be regarded as serious misconduct directly related to aircraft safety; that, in light of the disciplinary purposes of establishing organizational order and preventing recurrence, the level of discipline could not easily be considered excessively severe by social standards; and that, even if there were some issues in the course of interviews and the preparation of written statements of fact, these did not amount to serious defects sufficient to undermine the overall legitimacy of the disciplinary procedure.
Accordingly, the Commission held that the dismissal in this case fell within the employer’s discretionary authority in terms of grounds for discipline, severity of discipline, and disciplinary procedures, and determined that the employee’s claim of unfair dismissal could not be accepted.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s standpoint, it should be noted that, irrespective of whether criminal punishment is imposed or whether a violation of the Aviation Security Act is definitively established, violating conduct that is explicitly prohibited in internal rules such as the rules of employment or company regulations can in itself constitute serious grounds for discipline.
In industries directly connected to safety, such as aviation and transportation, employees should be particularly careful not to violate security screening, access, or carry-on procedures, even inadvertently. They should thoroughly understand the training content and manuals in advance, and where instructions are ambiguous, they should always obtain prior confirmation from a superior.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, it is important to clearly specify in the rules of employment and HR regulations the prohibited acts related to aviation security, safety, and security screening, and to ensure through regular training that employees fully understand these provisions.
In addition, when conducting disciplinary proceedings, employers should document the processes of investigation, interviews, and preparation of written statements of fact, and convene the disciplinary committee, issue notices, and adopt resolutions in accordance with the regulations. This will help ensure that, even if there are some procedural flaws, the overall fairness of the procedure is not called into question.
2. Matters Adjudicated
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Whether grounds for discipline existed
The employee argued that purchasing and receiving duty-free goods is an exercise of rights by a passenger holding a passport and boarding pass, that the carry-on luggage had undergone security screening and therefore did not constitute a violation of the Aviation Security Act, and that it was unfair to treat this as grounds for discipline when any regulatory violation had not yet been officially confirmed. However, if such conduct is explicitly prohibited under internal rules and it is acknowledged that the company’s internal regulations were violated, a disciplinary action based on this cannot automatically be deemed unfair.
B. Whether the severity of the disciplinary measure was appropriate
The nature and degree of the misconduct cannot be regarded as minor, and in particular, boarding an aircraft with carry-on luggage that had not undergone outbound security screening is directly connected to aircraft safety, making severe sanctions unavoidable to some extent. In addition, in light of the disciplinary purposes of establishing organizational order and preventing recurrence, the level of discipline cannot easily be considered excessively severe by social standards.
C. Whether the disciplinary procedures were lawful
The issues raised by the employee regarding the interview and the process of preparing the written statement of fact are part of the investigation process and do not constitute serious defects that would undermine the legitimacy of the entire disciplinary procedure. Even if there were some procedural problems, they are not sufficient to be regarded as serious defects that would render the entire disciplinary procedure null and void.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Whether grounds for discipline existed
The employee argued that purchasing and receiving duty-free goods is an exercise of rights by a passenger holding a passport and boarding pass, that the carry-on luggage had undergone security screening and therefore did not constitute a violation of the Aviation Security Act, and that it was unfair to treat this as grounds for discipline when any regulatory violation had not yet been officially confirmed. However, if such conduct is explicitly prohibited under internal rules and it is acknowledged that the company’s internal regulations were violated, a disciplinary action based on this cannot automatically be deemed unfair.
B. Whether the severity of the disciplinary measure was appropriate
The nature and degree of the misconduct cannot be regarded as minor, and in particular, boarding an aircraft with carry-on luggage that had not undergone outbound security screening is directly connected to aircraft safety, making severe sanctions unavoidable to some extent. In addition, in light of the disciplinary purposes of establishing organizational order and preventing recurrence, the level of discipline cannot easily be considered excessively severe by social standards.
C. Whether the disciplinary procedures were lawful
The issues raised by the employee regarding the interview and the process of preparing the written statement of fact are part of the investigation process and do not constitute serious defects that would undermine the legitimacy of the entire disciplinary procedure. Even if there were some procedural problems, they are not sufficient to be regarded as serious defects that would render the entire disciplinary procedure null and void. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Disciplinary Severity (Traffic Accident · Document Destruction)” Unfair Dismissal Decision
- “Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)” Unfair Dismissal Decision
- “Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)” Unfair Dismissal Decision
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, disciplinary severity (boarding with carry-on luggage that had not undergone security screening), disciplinary dismissal, violation of company policy · failure to comply with work orders, 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, “Disciplinary Severity (Traffic Accident · Document Destruction) Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to disciplinary severity (boarding with carry-on luggage that had not undergone security screening) can be viewed together on the “Disciplinary Severity (Boarding with Carry-On Luggage That Had Not Undergone Security Screening) Related Decisions” page.
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
